1x
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /n/ - Transportation
You are currently reading a thread in /n/ - Transportation
when will this meme end?
Maybe they'll switch back to front derailleurs once di2 is really affordable, but for now it just makes a ton of sense.
It's nice and simple if you're just racing through the woods.
And for full suspension it really helps framebuilders if they don't have to incorporate a front derailleur.
>>974007
>It's nice and simple if you're just racing through the woods.
Im mean, yeah , for DH specific build it makes a lot of sense, for anything going up or half up its just like cutting a steak with a spoon.
>And for full suspension it really helps framebuilders if they don't have to incorporate a front derailleur.
but
>dat chainline
>dat b screw tension
>dat noticable loss of lower gear change to struggle throug a climb
>>974013
Aside from the normal considerations of weight, complexity, handlebar real estate, etc chainring size effects suspension behavior. It is a lot easier to get a perfectly tuned suspension if there is only one chainring to consider. This is important enough that chainline issues are a worthwhile tradeoff for many disciplines.
http://blog.artscyclery.com/mountain/suspension-design-theory-and-anti-squat-behavior/
1x on a hardtail or road bike is thoroughly ridiculous.
I've also seen it done on tri bikes for very flat courses and I think that makes some sense.
it makes sense for mountain bikes, commuters
its fucking retarded for things like CX, adventure/touring and road bikes
the only reason it became a thing was because Sram dumped a bunch of money into their 1x marketing because they were incapable of designing a FD that worked correctly
I recently acquired a 1x fatbike.
I'm pretty satisfied with the upper gear range but the lowest gear ratio is less than 1.0 and i still feel it's too high sometimes when climbing terrain. Am i just a weakling who needs to git gud? How low gear ratios do decently competent mountain bikers usually need? I'm considering maybe adding an FD and make it a 2x.
>>974051
>Sram dumped a bunch of money into their 1x marketing because they were incapable of designing a FD that worked correctly
yeah, but their RDs for mtb are space technology compared to unresponisve shimanos RD.
>it makes sense for mountain bikes, commuters
I must disagree, in many ways its weird on XC, pic rel is Ninos bike, notice the rediculous rear cassete - I cant even think how does the b-screw look on that one an how much power is lost via crosschaining and suboptimal b screw on small cogs. Im hope its worth the weight compromise but when you look at the cassette, Im not even sure about that
In what sense is 1x a meme?
>>974013
>for anything going up or half up its just like cutting a steak with a spoon.
It's lighter.
>dat noticable loss of lower gear change
Just how low of a gear do you require?
>>974051
>Retarded for the discipline where mud clogs up anything and everything and if you go too slow you get off and push
NO U
>the only reason it became a thing was because Sram dumped a bunch of money into their 1x marketing because they were incapable of designing a FD that worked correctly
It was a thing for years before then.
>>974053
>Am i just a weakling who needs to git gud?
Maybe. If you're going to reconfigure your bike as an alternative to overcoming that, try a smaller chainring before going 2x.
>>974056
>I can't even think
>It must be a lot
If you're not willing to think, please keep your worthless opinions to yourself.
>>974053
>How low gear ratios
Standard 1x11 setup is about 32//11-42, or a lowest gear of about 1.3:1. Traditional 2x10 28/36//11-36 is very slightly higher than the typical 1x setup (1.28:1). Going to a double will not help you. HTFU.
>>974056
> bscrewbscrewbscrew
Idiot.
>chainline
Better than a double across the cassette range.
>>974057
>try a smaller chainring
Well sure, but then i wouldn't be happy with my upper range anymore.
>>974057
>its lighter
You think taking the weight of a derailleur off your bike makes up for not having a more versatile drivetrain? Why not just skip lunch and have a 2x bike?
>>974059
>>chainline
>Better than a double across the cassette range.
how on earth is crosschaining on a 1x better than straight chain on a double?
>>974061
It is a mtn bike and a fat mtn bike at that. How fast are you planning to ride it on a normal basis?
What rear cassette do you have on it now?
>>974066
>crosschaining
Inigo Montoya wants a word with you.
>hurr you dont even know what it means
Babby learned a new word. Fuck off you twelveyearold. First, I know more on setting up drivetrains than you ever will, and second and more importantly: how the derailleur follows the curvature of the cassette depends on the derailleur design. A derailleur designed for a 1x drivetrain will have a more aggressive curve and ride very close to the 10/11t cog, while riding very far from the 42t cog.
You've never even set up a 1x11 drivetrain in you life, you've just prooved as much, so fuck off.
(Derailleur ride height is also not called 'b-screw'. That's what you use to adjust it you autist.)
>>974068
>How fast are you planning to ride it on a normal basis?
About as fast as i can ride it currently, when terrain allows.
It's currently a 9speed 32x11-36. I was thinking i would add another 22t ring.
>>974074
>It's currently a 9speed 32x11-36.
Buy an NX upgrade kit. It's about €150 and you get 11-42. That'll be much more worthwhile than trying some 2x convertion.
>>974079
I already have and SLX fd and Deore shifter the previous owner threw in as a bonus. Al i would need is a couple of chainrings (and possibly new chainring bolts?).
The other alternative is, of course, trying to get stronger. I'm just not sure is the gains i need to be able to handle the things i can't handle right now is reasonably attainable. I am kind of a newb.
>>974085
Also, i'm tired and can't spell, apparently.
>>974053
My touring bike has a low gear of 26f, 42r. ... 16.8 gear inches. Can't imagine a fat bike with 1:1 ratio
This thread is confirmation you faggots don't race
1x is stellar for XC mtb and most mtb in general. 2x is only maybe useful for training and most pros don't even do it.
if you whine about your ratio being too hard at the low end, git fuckin gud.
t. currently running a 36t front ring with a 36 as my biggest cog in the rear. Perfect for where I ride. I also have a 32 for when the hills get hectic.
>>974122
>Muh status
>Muh EPO
>Muh KOMS bruh
>Muh motor doping
>Muh UCI
lol faggot
Remember: You are going to focus directly on the tree. The tree is your friend. You will not look away.
>>974061
You don't need much top end if you're riding strictly trails. I rarely spin out my 28t up front even in the city. A few pro DH riders are only running 32t up front this year.
Needing a 36t+ chain ring on a MTB is a meme, try some rougher trails or higher cadence if you need that much top end.
>>974131
what the fuck are you talking about? Where did Lance touch you as a child?
>>974145
Right on the national pride.
Be sure to remember. You will not look away.
>>974058
>2x
>"traditional"
Man here I am, still riding triples...
My "real" full-susp mountain bike has a 44/32/22 crankset and an 11-34 9-speed cluster, so 1.55:1 at the bottom end - and it's a 26" wheeled bike, so extra low. That's a "traditional" setup for you... I climb some steep shit with it, and I laugh whenever a pass a guy walking his multi-thousand-dollar brand-new carbon 1x up a hill.
(On the flip side, 0.25:1 on the top end is waaay higher than I need on this bike. I keep thinking about replacing the 44t outer ring with a bashguard; running it as 32/22 double would be fine)
The rigid 29'er also has a 44/32/22, and a tight 11-28 cassette, so right on 1:27:1 at the bottom. That bike is light as shit, and I'd consider that ratio the bare minimum for the terrain I ride on. Not pleasant on extended steep climbs, but I'm resisting the urge to put on a bigger cassette. And the high end of the triple is great for riding to-and-from the trails.
>>974122
>you faggots don't race
Yeah, and? The vast majority of mountain bikers don't. Racers are in the minority. If your arguement is "2x sucks because people don't race with it", you're a blithering idiot.
>>974318
t. pleb
>>974373
yeah, you might just need to get a bit stronger. Or get a bigger cassette. You can get stronger riding but squatting wouldn't hurt I suppose.
>>974007
>1x
>bad
I appreciate the range on a double, barely use the inner ring of a triple of course.
My current town bike has a 1x, it's a folder and they almost never have front mech.
Personally, for a town bike, I'd absolutely drop the front mech, town bikes get beat up and maintaining FDs sucks. They have so many variables in their adjustment that it's irritating as fuck to get perfect. Rear dérailleurs are much more straight forward.
For a race bike that is anything other than mtb, it's probably idiotic.
>>974442
>Maintaining fd sucks
It's only hard if you're retarded, but I do agree that they aren't always a requirement.
>>974074
1x9 is a hard setup for a new rider and even for a fairly experienced weekend rider. You really need all the climbing help you can get. Now with a 1x10 or 11 setup where you can get a 11-42 cassette it starts making a bit more sense for newer more casual people. I consider myself to be in pretty good biking shape and have two bikes that are 1x with 11-36 cassettes and can handle it but if I know I'm going to have a day with a lot of climbing I take the bike that still has a 2x9 setup on it.
>>974519
As long as you gear it low enough you can still climb well with 9 speed, the advantage of 11 speed (10 speed has the same range as 9, just with smaller gaps) is greater range.
The problem is a lot of people gear 1x9 bikes higher than they'd need so the top few gears rarely if ever get used. It's not a road bike, very rarely will you be going faster than like 20mph. I used to run 1x9 and my lowest gear was 32:32 and I don'[t think I ever found myself wanting lower and the top end was fine (20mph at 90rpm).
>mfw flipping through the JBI catalog and seeing that SRAM put out a new 12 speed cassette with a 50 tooth big cog/sprocket
>>974525
as i've said earlier in the thread my low gear is 32:36 and i find myself stalling out on steep climbs. my highest gear of 32:11 is pretty spot on
>>974528
I'm pretty sure Eagle has a 10 tooth smallest cog too
>>974539
at what point does it become "too much", honestly
>>974544
SRAM is done messing with MTB front derailleurs (for now at least), so they just make their 1x with better chainrings, cassettes, etc
>>974525
10 speed does NOT have the same range as 9 speed. The most range you can get with 9 speed is 11-36. Sunrace and others make 11-40/42 10 speed cassettes or you can just use one of the add on cogs.
It really depends on where you live what gearing you can get away with. 1x9 was whooping my ass here in Wv till this year when I've finally gotten to where I can handle it most of the time. Whenever I get around to upgrading though I'll be going 11 speed to get my bail out gear back on that bike. My other 1x is a 10 speed and when I wear that 11-36 cassette out it is getting a 11-40 Sunrace cassette as a replacement.
>>974007
Doesn't this make the rear really wide, like hit your heal on the Chainstays wide?
>>974571
I'm convinced there was no reason to go beyond 10 cogs in the rear, for road bikes at least. All the shop owners complain that they're finicky and the chainsdon't last. So they're a little lighter? Who cares?
>>974571
You can get 135mm OLD 11 speed wheels. The reasons for using wider hubs is strength (lower spoke angle) and another reason for wider chainstays is greater tyre clearance, however there are also wider bottom brackets.
>>974548
Sounds like what you need is some way to alter the ratios of the rear cassette on-the-fly. Like somehow run 2 or even 3 1×9 or 1×10 systems that you can select depending on the gradient.
The technology is probably years off, though. And it will be really expensive.
>>974051
I agree with you about the sram bit, but for cx its legitimately helpful, especially when you get so fucked up with mud that shufting front chainrings is more likely to drop chain than anything
>>974578
That would be as simple as making an IGH that can mount a 10-speed cassette.
>>974582
Already exists.
>>974587
>guys, guys, listen to this
>what if we replace the front chainrings with an IGH, so you get the worst of both worlds, but at least we don't have to design a working front derailleur??
>Shitmano is ruined!!!
just another day at SRAM
>>974646
>so you get the worst of both worlds
How so? The only disadvantages it has over a triple are probably more weight and the inability to customise the gearing (by that I mean the 3 IGH speeds are fixed). However for the advantages you have the ability to shift without pedalling, no crosschaining, quicker shifting, and probably some other things that I'm forgetting.
Personally I think it's a great idea and if I didn't get a cheap Alfine 11 I'd probably give it a go.
>>974666
>The only disadvantages it has over a triple are probably more weight and the inability to customise the gearing
Don't forget the torque limits of an IGH.
>>974666
it has literally all the cons of both systems combined
>more weight
>straight up less efficient than chainrings
>cant customise as you said
>half the shifts can be done under load and half can't? what a cluster fuck
>torque limit on IGH
>way more crosschaining than 3x8 (but ever since SRAM started marketing the 1x meme everyone has started pretending that cross chaining no longer matters, for some reason)
most importantly though, in terms of servicing, an IGH needs less servicing and typically lasts longer, but is harder to service and harder and more expensive to source replacement parts etc, and a derailleur drivetrain needs far more regular servicing and replacement, but is usually cheaper and easier to service, and if you mix the two you end up with the disadvantages of both, so now you have a combined system that needs servicing and replacement way more regularly, but also more expensive and complicated to fix if it breaks down on you.
as for the advantages you listed
>shift without pedalling
doesn't seem like an advantage to me if 3 shifts work like that and 8 don't, but that's just my opinion
>no crosschaining
1 chainring and 8 sprockets results in more crosschaining than 3 chainrings and 8 sprockets
>quicker shifting
???
>>974373
>Do you find that low gear actually useful?
Yeah. On a touring bike carrying 20lbs of crap, going up a big hill
I think the limit for keeping a bike upright is somewhere around 7 gear inches, so 16 isn't so bad. Good for the knees and spinning your way slowly up a hill. Less than that needed... time to walk it.
You can get that ratio with a 22t front and a 36t rear, I'm just an idiot running 26x42... I need to get an MTB crank
>>974063
Considering that the weight reduction is significant and the loss in versatility is marginal to non-existent, absolutely.
>>974065
>just admit it faggot
Why don't you get the ball rolling by admitting you can't quantify the difference in efficiency between a 2x and a 1x drivetrain set to equivalent ratios in any meaningful way?
'Plus size' tyres are the newest meme and I don't have them.
>>974318
The point is that no one shitting on 1x races, so they're not qualified to pass judgement on it for that purpose. That guy even said that 2x is useful for non-race scenarios.
>>974571
No. XD freehub bodies are the same width as the normal Shimano/Sram type.
>>974710
Of course cross chaining doesn't matter on a 1x. You can't end up in a situation where you need a higher gear but you're at the end of the cassette like you can on a 2x or 3x.
>>974750
Drivetrain losses increase dramatically with chain angle.
I don't find myself mashing my smallest cog much on my MTB, but for racing purposes I imagine it could be a pretty big deal to lose 10% of your power to cross-chaining. You wouldn't want that happening either in your low or high gears, but that's exactly where it does.
I'm unclear on what advantages you think there are for 1x on a hardtail/xc bike that could make up for that power loss?
>>974373
I'm the guy riding the triples on mtbs. Yes, I do find that lowest gear useful. I spend most of the time riding it as if it were a 1x9, but I'm thankful for the bailout gears when I hit steep climbs 30 miles in.
>>974025
It only makes sense on tri bikes because trifags are drooling retards, and can't hammer away at the cross-gear if you don't give them one.
>>974756
>I'm unclear on what advantages you think there are for 1x on a hardtail/xc bike that could make up for that power loss?
Considering that 1x is measurably 0.5 kg or so lighter than an similar 2x setup I'd say it readily makes up for the imaginary 10% loss in power you describe.
>>974750
>Of course cross chaining doesn't matter on a 1x. You can't end up in a situation where you need a higher gear but you're at the end of the cassette like you can on a 2x or 3x.
wow... what?
wow.
>>974058
There is no "traditional" 2x. Ratios available range from 32/22 to 45/30. On the low end even now a double can offer lower low gears then a single.
>>974750
>Of course cross chaining doesn't matter on a 1x. You can't end up in a situation where you need a higher gear but you're at the end of the cassette like you can on a 2x or 3x.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
>>974699
Which most riders, especially those who would choose such a thing, are unlikely to exceed.
>>974710
>straight up less efficient than chainrings
Insignificant
>half the shifts can be done under load and half can't?
Have you ever ridden an IGH, a decent one? Shifting under load isn't a problem, it will either shift fine or if you really put a lot of power in it won't shift until you ease up for a fraction of a second.
>way more crosschaining than 3x8
There is no crosschaining. Yes the chain angle can be greater than 3x8 unless you crosschain that, that's my point.
>everyone has started pretending that cross chaining no longer matters, for some reason
Because it really doesn't in most situations. There's an increased chance of dropping the chain on rough ground and a miniscule energy loss.
>doesn't seem like an advantage to me if 3 shifts work like that and 8 don't, but that's just my opinion
If you stop at and forget to shift down then no worries, just shift the IGH to a lower gear. Even more importantly if you're riding off road and get
caught out by a sudden climb or technical section you can also quickly shift down without having to pedal.
>quicker shifting
As above, have you ever ridden an IGH? They shift much quicker than derailers. Literally as soon as the shifter clicks that's it, you're in a different gear. I can go through all 11 speeds as fast as I can pull those triggers, if I had a Rohloff with a twist shifter that could be done stupidly quick.
>>974769
Then you're either an idiot or trolling.
>>974699
>Don't forget the torque limits of an IGH.
Not applicable for three-speed hubs. Those are indestructible.
>>974881
I hear they slip a lot.
One major advantage of 1x which has yet to be mentioned is the handlebar space it frees up for other controls.
>>974778
>>974822
What is confusing about this to you? If you end up in the small-small or big-big combinations of a multi-chainring setup (both scenarios incidentally having worse chain angle than any 1x ratio) then you need to make an awkward combination of chainring shifts and recovery shifts to get a taller or shorter gear respectively. You never have to do that on a 1x.
>>974851
You're an idiot if you think some ass-pull figure for energy loss due to chain angle is a reasonable basis for deciding the worth of two different drivetrains. Even if the energy loss due to chain angle was significant, it's a complete red herring in mountain biking where other concerns are the over-riding factors in the choice of gear combination.
>>974890
>it's a complete red herring in mountain biking where other concerns are the over-riding factors in the choice of gear combination.
*unless you're on a course that requires climbing or sprinting.
Like I keep saying. 1x is awesome for some disciplines and courses. For others, it is nonsensical. Most people who race are going to select the appropriate bike & drivetrain on a race-by-race basis. If the day calls for a hardtail or short-travel XC bike, 1x is usually going to be a poor choice.
You can defend that choice all you like, but you're arguing from a point of ignorance. Others are trying to educate you and you remain obstinate, which makes your ignorance willful.
>>974898
>If the day calls for a hardtail or short-travel XC bike, 1x is usually going to be a poor choice.
Why though? If you're racing you're likely putting a fair bit of money into your bike which means 11 speed is an option and you're going to be a fairly strong rider so you don't need a super low granny gear. Then you get all the benefits of 1x that can help in a race like less weight, better durability/reliability, better chain retention, handlebar space for other controls (dropper, lockout switches), and simpler operation.
>>974908
I'm not assuming that. What I am assuming is that the people that want to race are reasonably fit and not just weak casuals and have some spare cash for racing or are willing to spend more to race. I'd say that's a reasonable assumption.
>>974910
Racing happens on all kinds of levels. That spare cash may have gone into buying your one racing bike with one drive train configuration.
>>974898
>*unless you're on a course that requires climbing or sprinting.
Climbs in XC races are frequently short enough that any marginal efficiency gain from shifting to the inner ring is offset by the disruption of shifting chainrings. Sprinting takes place at or near the end of your gear range. If you have a choice of gear combinations for sprinting, your drivetrain is very poorly mismatched to your capabilities.
The only practical advantages of a multi-chainring setup in MTB racing are slightly greater range and the ability to quickly get a much easier gear by dropping to the inner ring. These advantages are worth very little compared to those of a 1x setup (listed in the post below yours).
"OMG how could you disagree with some bullshit I just made up on the spot!!11!! ur so stuppid" is not education. If you're willing to provide me with some quantitative data on the difference in drivetrain losses between comparable 1x and 2x drivetrains I'd be glad to peruse it.
>>974914
Confine your replies to >>974898 then. He's the one suggesting that 1x is so woefully suboptimal in certain circumstances that you'd need a 2x be competitive.
>>974914
The super poor don't tend to race, and an 11 speed setup isn't ludicrously expensive so it's fair to say that the vast majority of racers could have it if needed.
>buying your one racing bike with one drive train configuration.
Sure, I can understand that. I still don't see why that would mean running 2x instead of 1x.
