The End Of Campagnolo?

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

What's the advantage of running a single upfront?

1x offers maximum efficiency, no wasted gearing overlaps, an overall light weight system (under 2.4kg)

pangolin

£222 for a cassette

Groupset prices are nuts.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

So is Campag desirably enough that when Shimano and Sram get back on track with manufacturing the product managers at those OEM companies won't go revert away from Campag?

Sram and shimano still seem to be a fair way off getting production back up to speed. Campag have been able to keep up production and deliver products people want. It may not be quite as easy to gain back market share as sram/shimano think.

Another factor is pricing. S & S have always been cheaper due to their production scale, but as discussed on the bike prices thread, component costs have gone up massively. If people are now forced into paying a premium price for any brand, more and more may look to campag as it has a reputation as the superior product.

MattFalle

and with the fact that component prices are only going to rise, the fact that Campag is fully rebuildable, as opposed to S&S that you generally have to smash
fire lob into next door's garden, makes it even more attractive.

am i wrong that Campag also has more rim brake options as well? apols if so.

rick_chasey

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

What's the advantage of running a single upfront?

1x offers maximum efficiency, no wasted gearing overlaps, an overall light weight system (under 2.4kg)

Which begs the question, why is it not on road bikes if that is the case?

MattFalle

what - Ekar or 1x?

rick_chasey

Either.

MattFalle

I'm sure 1x is kicking around on the road, you had the 3T jobs, sure there are others.

its a common retro fit though - MF has 3 bikes with it.

shirley_basso

I think it didn't work for racing as the gears were too far apart and the pros who were riding it were quite damning.

I think things have improved with 12 speed groupsets and wider range cassettes. Average joe seems to be okay with it as some new top end groupsets are 1x12.

MattFalle

shirley_basso said:

I think it didn't work for racing as the gears were too far apart and the pros who were riding it were quite damning.

I think things have improved with 12 speed groupsets and wider range cassettes. Average joe seems to be okay with it as some new top end groupsets are 1x12.

As SB said - Aqua Blue Irish dudes?

Yup - it makes things a lot simpler to set up, it saves a load of wedge as you don't need to get a l/hand shifter, front mech or double c/rings (1x that work perfect are a tenner off the 'Bay) but 2x does give you more options.

I quite like the simplicity of 1x when riding tbh - its a nice option to have over a "normal" bike.

pblakeney

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

What's the advantage of running a single upfront?

1x offers maximum efficiency, no wasted gearing overlaps, an overall light weight system (under 2.4kg)

Offset in part by a big f-off cassette and longer chain.
Not arguing, just for accuracy.

me-109

1x on a road bike is less preferred by many where you might want more ratios to suit rider cadence as well as the actual spread of ratios. For off road, particularly gravel, it is useful in that you don't need to make chassis compromises (longer stays) that would be necessary to fit wider tyres that would otherwise interfere with the front mech.

rick_chasey

Gotcha. 👍🏻

pblakeney

me-109 said:

1x on a road bike is less preferred by many where you might want more ratios to suit rider cadence as well as the actual spread of ratios. For off road, particularly gravel, it is useful in that you don't need to make chassis compromises (longer stays) that would be necessary to fit wider tyres that would otherwise interfere with the front mech.

The best answer given to date.

MattFalle

pblakeney said:

me-109 said:

1x on a road bike is less preferred by many where you might want more ratios to suit rider cadence as well as the actual spread of ratios. For off road, particularly gravel, it is useful in that you don't need to make chassis compromises (longer stays) that would be necessary to fit wider tyres that would otherwise interfere with the front mech.

The best answer given to date.

+1

thegreatdivide

me-109 said:

1x on a road bike is less preferred by many where you might want more ratios to suit rider cadence as well as the actual spread of ratios. For off road, particularly gravel, it is useful in that you don't need to make chassis compromises (longer stays) that would be necessary to fit wider tyres that would otherwise interfere with the front mech.

However, Shimano only make 2x gravel groupsets - GRX mechanical and GRX Di2. They avoided the front mech vs fatter tyres issue by increasing the chain line. SRAM tweaked their front mechs and brought out the AXS Wide which means you can fit up to 45c tyres.

For 1x and 2x gravel groups SRAM have all bases covered, but I'll stick to my Ekar equipped Bokeh. It's the business!

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

What's the advantage of running a single upfront?

1x offers maximum efficiency, no wasted gearing overlaps, an overall light weight system (under 2.4kg)

Which begs the question, why is it not on road bikes if that is the case?

I thought one of the original benefits of 1x was not dropping chain

pblakeney said:

me-109 said:

1x on a road bike is less preferred by many where you might want more ratios to suit rider cadence as well as the actual spread of ratios. For off road, particularly gravel, it is useful in that you don't need to make chassis compromises (longer stays) that would be necessary to fit wider tyres that would otherwise interfere with the front mech.

The best answer given to date.

Except its nonsense.

How do stays that are a cm longer change how the front mech works? Does that mean a 60 cm frame shifts worse than a 50 cm frame?

In fact I'd argue that a shorter chain stay increases the range of chain angles and would make shifting marginally worse, if anything.

joeyhalloran

First.Aspect said:

Except its nonsense.

How do stays that are a cm longer change how the front mech works? Does that mean a 60 cm frame shifts worse than a 50 cm frame?

In fact I'd argue that a shorter chain stay increases the range of chain angles and would make shifting marginally worse, if anything.

It's the other way round, bike designed want a particular chain length to make the handling they want, they don't want to comparmise the handling by having to adjust it to fit a front mech. This is for gravel bikes with really fat tyres though.

IMO 1x works well offroad because the speed difference between the fastest and slowest you want to pedal is often smaller, cadence is less 'precise' as the ground is often slightly uneven so bigger gaps are less of an issue and front mech changing is often slightly less reliable, especially with mixed terrain (think steep uphills for example). It also allows for more mud clearance and easiest cleaning up.

Not many of these are issues on the road. I think weight isn't a big deal unless its for a hill climb bike.

rick_chasey

If dropped chains were an issue on road bikes surely they’d all be rocking 1x on P-R, not least as they don’t need a wide range?

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

What's the advantage of running a single upfront?

1x offers maximum efficiency, no wasted gearing overlaps, an overall light weight system (under 2.4kg)

Which begs the question, why is it not on road bikes if that is the case?

I thought one of the original benefits of 1x was not dropping chain

pblakeney said:

me-109 said:

1x on a road bike is less preferred by many where you might want more ratios to suit rider cadence as well as the actual spread of ratios. For off road, particularly gravel, it is useful in that you don't need to make chassis compromises (longer stays) that would be necessary to fit wider tyres that would otherwise interfere with the front mech.

The best answer given to date.

Except its nonsense.

How do stays that are a cm longer change how the front mech works? Does that mean a 60 cm frame shifts worse than a 50 cm frame?

In fact I'd argue that a shorter chain stay increases the range of chain angles and would make shifting marginally worse, if anything.

Not so much the gear changing but a change in geometry for clearance and therefore handling.

BetterShifting_Terry

thegreatdivide said:

me-109 said:

1x on a road bike is less preferred by many where you might want more ratios to suit rider cadence as well as the actual spread of ratios. For off road, particularly gravel, it is useful in that you don't need to make chassis compromises (longer stays) that would be necessary to fit wider tyres that would otherwise interfere with the front mech.

However, Shimano only make 2x gravel groupsets - GRX mechanical and GRX Di2.

RD-RX817 is Shimano's 1x-only Di2 GRX rear derailleur

MattFalle

.

BetterShifting_Terry said:

thegreatdivide said:

me-109 said:

1x on a road bike is less preferred by many where you might want more ratios to suit rider cadence as well as the actual spread of ratios. For off road, particularly gravel, it is useful in that you don't need to make chassis compromises (longer stays) that would be necessary to fit wider tyres that would otherwise interfere with the front mech.

However, Shimano only make 2x gravel groupsets - GRX mechanical and GRX Di2.

RD-RX817 is Shimano's 1x-only Di2 GRX rear derailleur

as per this?

https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/13118264/grx-di2#latest

thegreatdivide

rick_chasey said:

If dropped chains were an issue on road bikes surely they’d all be rocking 1x on P-R, not least as they don’t need a wide range?

With the current number of dropped chains in the peloton so far this year it might be an idea!

pblakeney

Need I mention David Millar's attempt at a 1x for a TT?

joeyhalloran

rick_chasey said:

If dropped chains were an issue on road bikes surely they’d all be rocking 1x on P-R, not least as they don’t need a wide range?

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/longo-borghinis-race-winning-trek-domane-the-perfect-bike-for-paris-roubaix/

They were. 1x has a 100% win streak at the women's PR.

rick_chasey

Fair enough

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

What's the advantage of running a single upfront?

1x offers maximum efficiency, no wasted gearing overlaps, an overall light weight system (under 2.4kg)

Which begs the question, why is it not on road bikes if that is the case?

I thought one of the original benefits of 1x was not dropping chain

pblakeney said:

me-109 said:

1x on a road bike is less preferred by many where you might want more ratios to suit rider cadence as well as the actual spread of ratios. For off road, particularly gravel, it is useful in that you don't need to make chassis compromises (longer stays) that would be necessary to fit wider tyres that would otherwise interfere with the front mech.

The best answer given to date.

Except its nonsense.

How do stays that are a cm longer change how the front mech works? Does that mean a 60 cm frame shifts worse than a 50 cm frame?

In fact I'd argue that a shorter chain stay increases the range of chain angles and would make shifting marginally worse, if anything.

Not so much the gear changing but a change in geometry for clearance and therefore handling.

The reasoning was that 1x dispenses with a front mech because the geometry of a gravel bike somehow compromoses shifting. I think that's either nonsense or so minor as to be irrelevant.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

If dropped chains were an issue on road bikes surely they’d all be rocking 1x on P-R, not least as they don’t need a wide range?

Well that was the selling point with narrow-wide I thought. Also you can use those mtb chain catchers.

I don't get it for normal road use, personally, though. Hence they aren't really catching on.

First.Aspect

joeyhalloran said:

First.Aspect said:

Except its nonsense.

How do stays that are a cm longer change how the front mech works? Does that mean a 60 cm frame shifts worse than a 50 cm frame?

In fact I'd argue that a shorter chain stay increases the range of chain angles and would make shifting marginally worse, if anything.

It's the other way round, bike designed want a particular chain length to make the handling they want, they don't want to comparmise the handling by having to adjust it to fit a front mech. This is for gravel bikes with really fat tyres though.

IMO 1x works well offroad because the speed difference between the fastest and slowest you want to pedal is often smaller, cadence is less 'precise' as the ground is often slightly uneven so bigger gaps are less of an issue and front mech changing is often slightly less reliable, especially with mixed terrain (think steep uphills for example). It also allows for more mud clearance and easiest cleaning up.

Not many of these are issues on the road. I think weight isn't a big deal unless its for a hill climb bike.

In what way does a bike geometry need to change to accommodate a front mech? Are you arguing that a 2x or 3x doesnt work beyond a certain overall chain length?

In terms of design freedom that is opened up by 1x, all I can think of is Q factor or how the stay joins the BB around particularly wide tyres. These are not really what you mean by "geometry".

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

In what way does a bike geometry need to change to accommodate a front mech?

Look how close your derailleur is to your tyre. Now imagine fitting a fat tyre.
1x are irrelevant for road use IMO.