1 x FOR RACING - Adam Blythe comments...

DeVlaeminck

ShutupJens wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Webboo wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

ShutupJens wrote:

Certain the posters who are claiming that 1x is perfect for road and hasn't done a thing wrong haven't read the title of the thread. Loads of things work for normal riding but not racing, it's a different kettle of fish completely, and getting caught out between gears is no fun

While this is true, and I appreciate my racing and their racing is very different in terms of terrain... but I've done countless races over 10 years and can't ever remember using the little ring during any of them.

The trick is to ride somewhere other than Norfolk

Or race on something other than an airfield or motor race circuit!

Precisely this! Once you've ridden a hilly road race in a bunch you'll understand

o

To be fair there are relatively few road races in the uk outside of National As that you couldn't ride on a 52*25 bottom gear. The one I can think of where I really needed the little ring was the old Elizabethan RR and latterly Brendan Chiu memorial on the same circuit as they go up Clee Hill - there may be some others but mostly not.

ShutupJens

DeVlaeminck wrote:

ShutupJens wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Webboo wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

ShutupJens wrote:

Certain the posters who are claiming that 1x is perfect for road and hasn't done a thing wrong haven't read the title of the thread. Loads of things work for normal riding but not racing, it's a different kettle of fish completely, and getting caught out between gears is no fun

While this is true, and I appreciate my racing and their racing is very different in terms of terrain... but I've done countless races over 10 years and can't ever remember using the little ring during any of them.

The trick is to ride somewhere other than Norfolk

Or race on something other than an airfield or motor race circuit!

Precisely this! Once you've ridden a hilly road race in a bunch you'll understand

o

To be fair there are relatively few road races in the uk outside of National As that you couldn't ride on a 52*25 bottom gear. The one I can think of where I really needed the little ring was the old Elizabethan RR and latterly Brendan Chiu memorial on the same circuit as they go up Clee Hill - there may be some others but mostly not.

Did you really just say that? Relatively few, relative to what exactly? You could ride loads of races round here (North/West Yorks, East Lancs) but compete you could not, if you had spent all race grinding around in your big ring

DeVlaeminck

Edited!

OK got it right this time - I generally ride a 50:36 but say you've got a 52 big ring to be fair.

With a 25 sprocket if you climbed at 60 rpm you'd be below 10mph, at maybe. More reasonable 80 you'd be 13mph. There aren't many races where you are doing less sat in the saddle for a period round here - S.Yorks and the Midlands.

Ymmv but I stll can't think of many races I'd be in the small ring - Lancs and North Yorkshire may be different.

bobmcstuff

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

ShutupJens wrote:

Certain the posters who are claiming that 1x is perfect for road and hasn't done a thing wrong haven't read the title of the thread. Loads of things work for normal riding but not racing, it's a different kettle of fish completely, and getting caught out between gears is no fun

I think there's a distinction between "1x is cr@p for racing" and "the 3T bike is cr@p" which is frequently not being made.

Certainly most of the chain issues seem to be related to the 3T freehub being rubbish.

I can see how the ratio jumps might be less than ideal cadence-wise for racing but the mechanical failures seem to have been the real killer.

Genuine question, where have you seen the complaints about the freehub and what exactly is the issue? Are they seizing up or is it something to do with the use of very small sprockets causing the chain to fall due to a tighter bend? I don't really see the need for 9 and 10 tooth sprockets aren't bigger chainrings easier and more efficient anyway ?

Mainly on here to be fair (viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13092042&p=20410874&hilit=freehub#p20410851) and in that CP episode the response from 3T seemed to refer to it (they talked about servicing and greasing the freehub)

Apparently it has been jamming which then caused the chain to drop.

The other issue being failed seatposts.

ddraver

(not sure I'm buying anything from 3T for a long while...)

joey54321

Dorset Boy wrote:

Webboo wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

ShutupJens wrote:

Certain the posters who are claiming that 1x is perfect for road and hasn't done a thing wrong haven't read the title of the thread. Loads of things work for normal riding but not racing, it's a different kettle of fish completely, and getting caught out between gears is no fun

While this is true, and I appreciate my racing and their racing is very different in terms of terrain... but I've done countless races over 10 years and can't ever remember using the little ring during any of them.

The trick is to ride somewhere other than Norfolk

Or race on something other than an airfield or motor race circuit!

80% of the races I have done have been open road stuff, I get bored during crits so tend to avoid them (I am also bad at them, and tend to better as the races get longer).

SJH76

joey54321 wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Webboo wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

ShutupJens wrote:

Certain the posters who are claiming that 1x is perfect for road and hasn't done a thing wrong haven't read the title of the thread. Loads of things work for normal riding but not racing, it's a different kettle of fish completely, and getting caught out between gears is no fun

While this is true, and I appreciate my racing and their racing is very different in terms of terrain... but I've done countless races over 10 years and can't ever remember using the little ring during any of them.

The trick is to ride somewhere other than Norfolk

Or race on something other than an airfield or motor race circuit!

80% of the races I have done have been open road stuff, I get bored during crits so tend to avoid them (I am also bad at them, and tend to better as the races get longer).

These types of races are probably not going to be an issue for a 1x11 chainset. After all the Specialized Allez Sprint was exactly designed for this and is a lot older than the 3T bike. The issue is really the sort of riding 3 weeks of riding a grand tour brings. Who exactly is this setup benefiting? An out and out climber cares not about aerodynamic efficiency of a single chainrings sans derailleur. A sprinter might but is he going to be happy grinding up the mountains on it? You might get the odd one day specialist rider who can benefit from it, but in doing so you just hamstrung the rest of his teammates. It has its place. 3 weeks of the toughest roads in Europe is not one of them

inseine

Although possibly interesting all this chat is a bit OT unless Aqua blue we’re riding 3rd cat races in the UK

thegibdog

If 1x wasn’t a compromise we’d be seeing other racers choosing to adopt it. In a race you want a close ratio cassette and the ability to get your chain back on without stopping and doing it manually.

Sure, there are races where an 11-21 and your preferred chainring would be suitable, but many races where it wouldn’t be. At this point it becomes a disadvantage.

I have 1x on my cross bike but wouldn’t want it on a road bike for fast group rides, as I’d be compromising either my gear range or my cadence. And I have dropped a chain with a clutch mech and a narrow-wide chainring. Fine if you’re on your own and able to stop to put it back on, not great if you’re in a road race!

Having said all that it’s clear that Aqua Blue’s problems extended well beyond the bikes.

ShutupJens

I agree, it's still a compromise if you aren't the one dictating the pace ie in a group or race setting. Regardless of the level that you race at.

Teams have found ways around problems with tech before though haven't they, whereas the problem with the management and the immediate lack of funding is more of an issue

Vino'sGhost

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Edited!

OK got it right this time - I generally ride a 50:36 but say you've got a 52 big ring to be fair.

With a 25 sprocket if you climbed at 60 rpm you'd be below 10mph, at maybe. More reasonable 80 you'd be 13mph. There aren't many races where you are doing less sat in the saddle for a period round here - S.Yorks and the Midlands.

Ymmv but I stll can't think of many races I'd be in the small ring - Lancs and North Yorkshire may be different.

But youd have to spin like a junior in the fast bits....

joey54321

thegibdog wrote:

If 1x wasn’t a compromise we’d be seeing other racers choosing to adopt it.

I disagree, cycling and cyclists are very archaic and slow to change. Look how many climbers/riders still ride 'un-aero' bikes when it has been demonstrated time and time again that aero bikes are faster for all but the very, very hilly days. Or look at all the GT 'specialists' that have a less aero-optimised position than most of the top domestic TTers.

webboo

joey54321 wrote:

thegibdog wrote:

If 1x wasn’t a compromise we’d be seeing other racers choosing to adopt it.

I disagree, cycling and cyclists are very archaic and slow to change. Look how many climbers/riders still ride 'un-aero' bikes when it has been demonstrated time and time again that aero bikes are faster for all but the very, very hilly days. Or look at all the GT 'specialists' that have a less aero-optimised position than most of the top domestic TTers.

Yet when any of the domestic TTers who are not riding for a pro team go up against said pro’s guess what happens.

ddraver

Craigus89 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Craigus89 wrote:

Whats the supposed advantage of a 1X setup?

Do we have to do this again?

Sorry, I really didn't know.

I assumed it must have been more than maintenance for it to be used by the pros, as has been mentioned above.

It seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

It you really havent seen one before, this is where these threads usually end up. "My gear is bigger than your gear"

...took a little longer because of the team ending connection but....

joey54321

Webboo wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

thegibdog wrote:

If 1x wasn’t a compromise we’d be seeing other racers choosing to adopt it.

I disagree, cycling and cyclists are very archaic and slow to change. Look how many climbers/riders still ride 'un-aero' bikes when it has been demonstrated time and time again that aero bikes are faster for all but the very, very hilly days. Or look at all the GT 'specialists' that have a less aero-optimised position than most of the top domestic TTers.

Yet when any of the domestic TTers who are not riding for a pro team go up against said pro’s guess what happens.

That the domestic TTer is still more aerodynamically efficient.

webboo

Doesn’t seem to help them win though.

joey54321

Webboo wrote:

Doesn’t seem to help them win though.

Ah, I see, you are saying regardless of equipment and set up choices the better rider should win...don't know what Blythe is complaining about then. If he was the better rider he would always win, even with 1x.

It is laughable that you don't see the point I am making though. You are talking about a rider who has won the genetic lottery AND has all day to train AND doesn't have the stress of going to work Vs your average guy trying to pay the mortgage and racing as a hobby. Hmm, lets maybe think about which one might have an advantage there.

cougie

joey54321 wrote:

thegibdog wrote:

If 1x wasn’t a compromise we’d be seeing other racers choosing to adopt it.

I disagree, cycling and cyclists are very archaic and slow to change. Look how many climbers/riders still ride 'un-aero' bikes when it has been demonstrated time and time again that aero bikes are faster for all but the very, very hilly days./quote]

But surely you'd just see the dudes on aero bikes win all of the time. Unless - gasp - it doesn't make THAT much difference ?

webboo

joey54321 wrote:

Webboo wrote:

Doesn’t seem to help them win though.

Ah, I see, you are saying regardless of equipment and set up choices the better rider should win...don't know what Blythe is complaining about then. If he was the better rider he would always win, even with 1x.

It is laughable that you don't see the point I am making though. You are talking about a rider who has won the genetic lottery AND has all day to train AND doesn't have the stress of going to work Vs your average guy trying to pay the mortgage and racing as a hobby. Hmm, lets maybe think about which one might have an advantage there.

Are you for real.

cycleclinic

1x will allow wider tyres. Also why do we model our drivetrains on what the pros use. I don't to grand tours so I use the gearing that works for me, not someone else. That's 52/12-27t at the moment on the 795 and 42/11-32t on the commute. If I lived in Yorkshire I would have an 11-42t cassette out back..

thegibdog

joey54321 wrote:

thegibdog wrote:

If 1x wasn’t a compromise we’d be seeing other racers choosing to adopt it.

I disagree, cycling and cyclists are very archaic and slow to change. Look how many climbers/riders still ride 'un-aero' bikes when it has been demonstrated time and time again that aero bikes are faster for all but the very, very hilly days. Or look at all the GT 'specialists' that have a less aero-optimised position than most of the top domestic TTers.

It’s a fair point, pro cycling can be slow to embrace new ideas. However, some racers do choose to use aero kit, whereas none of them are choosing to use 1x for road racing. It could be that it just takes time, but really I think the negatives outweigh the positives at the moment.

joey54321

Perhaps, but I believe there are undoubtedly courses where riders don't need a large gear range and given that 1x has a very proven aerodynamic benefit you would have thought if it were an option it would have been used in those races.

cycleclinic

Well pros still use tubs over tubeless yet tubeless tyres are generally quicker, don't blow out can self heal and dont roll of the rims when flat like tubs.

So given pro still use tubs it is not surprising the potential aero gain is overlooked. Or perfhaos they feel small advantages are not needed

r0bh

thecycleclinic wrote:

Well pros still use tubs over tubeless yet tubeless tyres are generally quicker, don't blow out can self heal and dont roll of the rims when flat like tubs.

So given pro still use tubs it is not surprising the potential aero gain is overlooked. Or perfhaos they feel small advantages are not needed

Most of the "benefits" of tubeless you've said here are actually the benefits of tubular, which is why the pros use them! Tubular tyres don't blow out and don't roll off the rims when flat (which surely tubeless would?)

Matthewfalle

r0bh wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Well pros still use tubs over tubeless yet tubeless tyres are generally quicker, don't blow out can self heal and dont roll of the rims when flat like tubs.

So given pro still use tubs it is not surprising the potential aero gain is overlooked. Or perfhaos they feel small advantages are not needed

Most of the "benefits" of tubeless you've said here are actually the benefits of tubular, which is why the pros use them! Tubular tyres don't blow out and don't roll off the rims when flat (which surely tubeless would?)

but remember that Malcolm sells tubeless wheels so to post the benefits of tubular wouldn't be on really....

larkim

joey54321 wrote:

Perhaps, but I believe there are undoubtedly courses where riders don't need a large gear range and given that 1x has a very proven aerodynamic benefit you would have thought if it were an option it would have been used in those races.

I'm no aerodynamicist (nowhere near!) but I do find it hard to believe that in the mayhem of rider body parts, wheels / spokes, peloton chaos, crank movement, inconsistent wind directions, inconsistent speed of airflow and the mix of flat riding, descending and climbing at massively different average speeds that something as simple as a FD and a second crank ring makes any noticeable aero difference. If those variables are more controlled (e.g. in an individual TT) I can see that perhaps there is a marginal gain, but I'd struggle to imagine that any micro-gains from aero (if they are measurable) would be meaningful when traded off against the ability to make relatively fine adjustments to cadence / power output as a result of having a closer rear cog.

pedro118118

Seems Rotor have sorted it.
1 x 13.
Just need the bespoke bb, crankset, chainring, rear cassette and..........hub!
https://road.cc/content/tech-news/244867-video-first-look-rotor-1x13-all-you-need-know-about-rotors-latest-hydraulic

inseine

r0bh wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Well pros still use tubs over tubeless yet tubeless tyres are generally quicker, don't blow out can self heal and dont roll of the rims when flat like tubs.

So given pro still use tubs it is not surprising the potential aero gain is overlooked. Or perfhaos they feel small advantages are not needed

Most of the "benefits" of tubeless you've said here are actually the benefits of tubular, which is why the pros use them! Tubular tyres don't blow out and don't roll off the rims when flat (which surely tubeless would?)

You could switch that argument around and say why use tubs when tubeless have all the benefits plus lower rolling resistance?

SJH76

inseine wrote:

r0bh wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Well pros still use tubs over tubeless yet tubeless tyres are generally quicker, don't blow out can self heal and dont roll of the rims when flat like tubs.

So given pro still use tubs it is not surprising the potential aero gain is overlooked. Or perfhaos they feel small advantages are not needed

Most of the "benefits" of tubeless you've said here are actually the benefits of tubular, which is why the pros use them! Tubular tyres don't blow out and don't roll off the rims when flat (which surely tubeless would?)

You could switch that argument around and say why use tubs when tubeless have all the benefits plus lower rolling resistance?

From what I've been told by a friend who worked for a pro team, it's more to do with the time it takes to get them fixed. A tubular will be a quick replacement where a tubeless is a bit more time consuming for the mechanics. With all the other stuff they have to do they just don't have the time. The good thing about tubs is they are quick and easy along with all their other benefits, tubeless are just not better options on the balance of things.

rozzer32

Don’t forget with tubs that you can ride them with a puncture. So if pros do puncture tubs, they radio the team car then sit on the back of the peloton until the car is behind them.

With tubeless in theory the puncture should seal. But if it doesn’t or it’s a sidewall cut then they’re sat at the side of the road waiting for the car watching the peloton ride away.