That's a bit of a stretch.

It costs a few friction watts. Woo.

Probably offset by gains in aerodynamics for no front derailleur.

They put the friction loss at ~6 watts and the aero gain at ~3 watts. So, 3 watts to the bad.

Sucks is an overstatement - but I had to get you to click.

Reduced risk of throwing your chain vs 3 watt penalty.

A chain catcher and 2x is probably the right solution for most.

Yes.

I used to throw chain a lot but it's not happening again after I install chain catcher and set the front derailleur correctly.
I still think 2x is the way to go.

This is being discussed in another thread already, but their test is far from "fair". Non Triathlete gearing and two completely different groupsets likely just widens the gap. Probably much closer with more practical drivetrains, at least from a tri perspective.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

The takeaway I read was that cross chaining doesn’t really create more friction in a narrow-wide chainring vs standard 2x chainring.
Also, most of the friction is caused by the 1x system using smaller chainrings and smaller cogs to hit the same gear ratio as a 53t 2x system.

So if you use 1x with a larger chainring, mixed with larger rear cogs, the friction should be about the same.

---

Alex Arman

Strava

It's a legit difference for a gravel racer, as you'll use that entire range on your 1x. But, have mechanical issues just once and all the gains in 2x are gone. Not to mention hardly anyone is going to be in and out in and out of the two rings versus just for those few bigger/longer hills.

For tri or TT, I call BS. In tri or TT, unless it's a really hilly deal......you're going to be in one of two cogs in the middle for 90% of the ride.

So, for tri or TT.........you're gaining that 3w aero and not cross chaining for 90%.....and losing 3w in the driveline maybe 10% of the time.

Also, in lots of these they're using what would be more of a gravel or "in town rambler" size 1x chainring. Then saying verbatim "well, some of the loss is because in the 1x test we used a 48t and in the 2x test used 53t". Uhm, in tri and TT some of that is going to be 50, 53, 54, even 56+. And not much use of the 11,12, or 13 or 25/28 cogs. Pretty much 14/15/16/17.

I use 1x on my CX/gravel bike.
No chain catcher and I've never dropped a chain.

If I had a MTB, it would be 1x.


However, for road/TT, I see no good reason to do anything but 2x.

OMG!!! The laws of Physics win again!!!!

<sarcasm>The earth is flat and I want my 10t!!!!!!</sarcasm>

Ugh, could they have introduced any more variables into that to muddy the results? Why didn't they test Force 1 against Force 22? Not that I would expect the outcome to be substantially different, but in a test that's trying to quantify small differences in efficiency between 2x and 1x, you'd think they'd want to isolate the variables to only those required to go from 2x to 1x. Run the same chain. Change the cassette ratio, but get it from the same family. And choose two RD's from the same manufacturer, at least.

[Duplicate post from the "Force AXS" thread, since a specific thread has now been opened on the topic]

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

it's very simple
1x for gravel/cross/mountain
2x for road/tri

That wouldn't work for me -
I do gravel/cx rides where I'm dying in the granny (36-32) going up, but still want the full speed for downhills (50-11), and you can't get that useful range in a 1x.

Totally agree that mtb = 1x. No brainer, it just works.
I'm still not sold on anything but 2x for any other application, since around me we have big hills that I like to get up, and then go down REALLY FAST.

---

float , hammer , and jog

Fwiw, some of us believed the entire reason why the 10t cog was even introduced was not to actually use it, but to push the 11 one more to the left. I am sure I talked about this at least 3-4 years back. 1x is dead simple, there is no thinking, there is up or down. Don't underestimate the amount of brain energy that goes into shifting when you are red-lining in 9 hour race. Fwiw as well, anecdotally n1, I have had 75% fewer chain drops with 1x vs 2x.

But like Alex the takeaways are all wrong for many cyclists. Sure they apply to some cyclists, but the cyclists they apply to are also least likely to even read and pay attention to this IMHO. Take my own setup. What they are saying is that my 54t-11t has no friction difference whether it is 1x or 2x. For many years I have used this setup in 1x or 2x setup but they essentially have the same friction. So no, it isn't 3 watts in that case and factoring in aero, weight, ease of use, price, system complexity greatly favors 1x.

Now if I was doing an uphill stage TT and was in my 54-32T vs say 39-23T maybe, but what percentage of triathlon courses am I ever using a 32T. I used an 54T-25T at Ironman Arizona and I think I was in the 25 for about 4.5 minutes of the race and that is a way off from the 48t in their system

Regardless the graph they have is useless. They need to link to the proper image and not just a quasi thumbnail. Also I am confused by the following line " Smith’s previous research also indicates that the clutch in the SRAM 1X rear derailleur adds no friction."

The rest of the article seems to indicate that increased chain tension adds friction, does the Sram 1x clutch not add any chain tension?

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

I'm with you on the high end...but around here, I need at least a low of 1:1, if not lower on the gravel/adventure bike. Then again, I tend to take it on stuff a lot of people consider "MTB trails" ;-) So yeah, having a wide range that's the result of 2 overlapping ranges with shorter steps within each range just seems like a no-brainer for me.



Meh...I'm not so sure. I still think it only came about because frames got so tortured trying to fit extra large wheels into MTBs that there was no room to fit a front derailleur and still have room for rear suspension bits... :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

My experience has been my gravel bike is the poster child for a 2x system - it requires the largest range and the tightest cog spacing when you factor in the purpose of the bike (at least for me). My gravel bike is designed to mix of terrain - loose gravel, steep hills, flat pavement, high speed road pedalling, etc.

---

_______________________________________________

Personally, I would have like to have seen the chain standardized. At least they did the same 'treatment' to each one.

I have 1x for the first time. Live in a non mountainous area. I rode a 2:22 and 4:45 last 70.3 and IM.
1x is not enough gear for me. I’m cross chained a lot, and riding at 60rpm some every ride.
All that said I’ll still stick with it because it’s not that big a deal, but I wouldn’t do it again.

I have never dropped the chain.

This.

There's a lot of valuable work here. They study the effects of cross chaining, narrow wide rings and chain angulation/low tooth count sprockets. Hugely useful to making a decision on the systems.

But they admit that one chain is probably costing a few watts compared to the other. Makes direct comparison misleading. Shift one of the graphs by 3W and 1x looks a lot more appealing.

Why? 2X doesn't need the special chain. That's part of the difference.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I think Zinn, as he likes to do, overstated the differences in chains. The old friction facts reports have them under .5 watts across brands. The Dura Ace was the fastest, but Ceramic Speed, who Jason works for now, uses KNC.

In general everything Zinn writes is full of bias and BS. The problem with this is the data was third party so it sounds like he's still trying to convince himself that his choice of 1x isn't so bad.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

This may be the dumbest thing I've read today..

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

What 1x needs a different chain than the equivalent 2x system uses? SRAM Force 1x calls for the same PC-1170 chain as SRAM Force 22. The new Force AXS is the same chain, 2x or 1x.

Running an Ultegra Chain (and cassette) for the 2x portion of this test was unnecessary, other than to cloud the conclusions.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

? They most certainly used a 2x chain for both tests. One SRAM, one Shimano. There could have been differences in pulleys, cage/pulley tension, chains, or possibly even cassette/chainring coatings. I don't disagree that there are differences due to the size of the cogs and chainring, but do they really tell the entire store?

Maybe they could have gone with a SRAM 50/34 and an 11-25 cassette. Swap out the 50/34 for the SRAM 1x in 50 and an 11-36 cassette to get the same range. Keep everything else the same. Maybe once I'm running a successful magazine and online publication I'll get to that.

OK...I guess the latest "special" chain for the AXS systems had me confused. 1X uses different chainrings though (which may have an affect on the chain and how it "skews")

But, see what Heath said above. Differences in chains have been shown to be much smaller than what Zinn appears to be asserting (or hoping)...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Correct. There are 1x specific chains, but they are just the normal 2x chains without the extra step of chamfering the outer plates to aid in front shifting. They should be less expensive than their 2x counterparts, but that's not the case from what I have seen.

No, 6W is the worst case scenario. Look at their graph. Unless you are in Lanzarote, you'll be in the middle cogs 90% of the time in a race setting, where the difference is 1.5 - 2W. Aero gains are greater than that, so 1x wins out by a hair. Switch to a larger chain ring as others are stating and the benefit of 1x grows

I ride 42x11/36 on my gravel bike. There are very few times I have spun out at high speed or wished for more gearing on hills.
I think it depends on your gravel/pave mix though.

I am still riding 10 speed on my TT bike. Should I stop winning races now???

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

To quote Inigo Montoya: "...that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Yeah... data with 5% error trying to predict 2% differences. Too much noise in the data.

I have used all of the setups mentioned, so I am practically THE expert on the topic.

Road: 2x is the way to go for the smaller gaps, as road is more of a rhythm game anyway. 1x is fine, but i hate getting caught between gears.

gravel: 2x is fine for gravel where long rides are common and you get in a rhythm. 1x if fine also, but the big gaps become noticed when you ride with people on 2x. You don’t realize 1x is a compromise until you go back to 2x.

Cx: 1x is pretty key for cx and anything remotely muddy. Cx is all full gas or braking/turning, so if you are fussing too much about cadence... you are losing. The less you need to fiddle with a 2x, the better.

Xc/mtb: 1x. If you need the very top or bottom of your cassette, you are either unfit (losing) or you chose the wrong front chainring. There is often so much rapid change in elevation that cadence is less of a factor. 1x lets you focus on the task at hand (line, obstacles, etc).

They didn't use a special chain in that test. 1x system was tested with an 1170 chain which is just a normal 11 speed chain, but then they used a shimano chain for the 2x.

EDIT: saw that this was already mentioned...never mind..

I used to have that problem LOADS with the SRAM force front 'yaw' mech. Its telling it has a built in chain catcher when you buy it.

(Rarely a problem on 3x MTBs and never on the road bike - all shimano).
Solution... Shimano Ultegra front mech. Problem went away. (The SRAM mounting design was too flexi on a 'braze on' mount = shifting movement too variable).

The main takeaway is that Sram drivetrains suck compared to Shimano. Or at least Sram's implementation of 1x. Otherwise we'd see the 48t 1x being very close to the 53t in most of the range, instead of barely beating the 39t and only in the middle.




1x makes sense for me in MTB and TT. Not road; just too big of a range needed and I like close ratios. I'd want 2x for gravel also.

I haven't used the front derailleur in a TT race in a long time (even with an 11-21 on the back!) but that's because they are flat. Then again I know someone who used 1x at TT worlds last year, where there was a long steep climb. I'm not certain what he ended up with, but I know a 60-11/40 was discussed.

Hence the Campy front derailleur on my otherwise all Rival bike... :)

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

To anyone:
Maybe my eyes are getting bad or, more likely, I need a new monitor, but for the life of me I cannot tell what the three (green, red, and royal blue) lines indicate ... anyone know?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

TIL there is a right and wrong way to put a chain on some 1X chainrings. The outer plates go on the thinner teeth and the inner plates go on the thicker teeth.

Red is 1x 48t. Blue is 2x 53t. Green is 2x 39t. Watts vs ratio.

Yeah for sure. I had a 42t 1x setup a couple of years ago and I hated it. I always seemed to be in the last 3 cogs when on the road. I actually wore out the last 2 cogs in a season! That says a lot - definitely not a good fit for my riding. 50-34 with an 11-32 really is a great setup with no downsides.

---

_______________________________________________

Not following. Why would that be dumb?

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Uhh.. ok?

Full disclosure, I HATE 2x for CX so I compromise with a CX/Gravel bike that is 1x. If I give up CX racing I'll get a 2x gravel bike... and something with a third bottle mount.

Well what would be the point of moving the 11t inboard? I've never heard of someone wanting the 11t more inboard. If the point is to get a better chainline to the 11t, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense on variety of levels.

Yep... just start at 11 and get a bigger chainring and large cog.

But then they wouldn't need to design a new proprietary freehub...

The idea was to increase the actual efficiency of the drivetrain thru a real-world weighted average focusing on giving the most used gears the best chainline. One big flaw in the linked article is it assumed each cog is used the exact same amount of time proportionally, ie a 10speed cassette each has 10% weighting for each cog.

In this case you also still have the ability to use the 10 if you really need it say for a short part of the Hawi descent. Miranda Carfrae was one of at least 2 athletes to have a prototype 10t cog. I think Tony Martin was the other. I also heard Sebi had one but I maybe wrong on that as well.

Does that make any more sense or is that still the dumbest thing on the internet today, lol.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Right but the bigger chainring is less aero and as the diameter keeps get larger the weight increases quite rapidly with a solid aero chainring. In addition, that larger cog is also going to be less aero and heavier as well. I know weight weight weight discussion, but you would be surprised. Once at Ironman Arizona, I have seen Lewis Elliott do it too, but they actually only ran like 5 cogs to save weight and increase aerodynamics.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Also depends hugely on W/kg. The more power to weight you have, the less low gears you need, but it doesn't really impact the top gears you need so weaker riders end up needing a bigger range and have more spacing between gears. Rappstar is a big fan of 1x, but he's also an ex-pro (or semi-pro?) athlete who is lean with plenty of power. And I guess also how hard you want to go at hills. I have a bike with a low gear of 39-25 which is fine for nearly all the climbs around me when I'm going hard, but I've learned not to take it out on hilly group rides where the pace is more social, as I end up grinding away at an uncomfortably low cadence to stay with the group.

I won't give up my 2x for 'cross. You're right about not fussing, but I try to choose a chainring for a course and leave it there, like choosing tire tread. In even the worst conditions, the fd isn't a problem if you aren't using it. (Yes, I could reconfigure a 1x at each venue or everytime it rains, but I'm way too lazy for that!)

Neither your eyes nor your monitor are bad, the picture is. From reading the accompanying text, I was able to infer:
Red=SRAM Force 1
Blue=Shimano 2x, big (53T) chainring
Green=Shimano 2x, small (39T) chainring

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

But they also reduced the size of the chainrings so it's a wash.. Your 10t is the same as a 11t so if you really liked being in the 11t before now you have to use the 10 and you're still crosschained.
That's why I think 12sp is stupid.. They should have really just added an extra cog in the to fill a gap in the high range and that would have improved chain line.

---

What's your CdA?

Good catch. Diamondbacks testing (also done by ceramic speed, oddly) shows very different friction curves for the small ring and their testing had fewer variables: https://ride.diamondback.com/...files-1x-drivetrains

That one only shows a 1W difference in the worst case for a 48t 1x vs 53/39t 2x. Only the 4 smallest cogs perform worse on the 1x. For most of the range it's a 0.25W difference, which is not a measurable difference anyway. (green line is optimal chain-ring in the 2x and red line is 1x)

I'm not the one using inflammatory language, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Someone trying to maximize chainline efficiency like that would be very concerned about drivetrain efficiency above other factors. But the 11t cog is already a very inefficient cog. The losses of using an 11t cog vs. a 12t greatly exceed gains of moving the chainline one slot over. So moving the 11t cog to a location where it might be used more could result in a net loss of efficiency.

As rruff said, pick your ring size so that the cogs in the middle of your cassette are the ones you use more often. If you find yourself spending much time at all in a 11t or 10t cog, your rings are too small. Those are both special-purpose cogs.

I agree with this

I have seen Starky set up similar to this. The inboard cluster of 3 is missing to 'improve the airflow around the disc and save weight.' I think I also saw a repeat of a small cog to straighten the chainline by moving the small cogs inboard a little.

There is ~2W loss going from 11t to 10t. The weight difference will never amount to that (and if you care about weight you can make the cogs and rings quite light). Same for aero.

In fact, if we wanted to optimize supply and demand, we'd probably be running a 14t as our smallest cog. To equivalent to a 53/11 we'd need a 68t ring. And to match a 28t rear we'd need a 36t. Kinda large, maybe.

But... what if we used a smaller pitch chain as well? Instead of 1/2 inch, use 1cm. This would get the size of the 68t ring and 36t cog back down to 53t and 28t with 1/2 inch pitch.

Trail, yes I know you aren't the one with the inflammatory remarks, no worries. Little tongue and cheek anyways, I mean seriously, there is a lot of dumb stuff on the internet. For this to be the dumbest thing for Heath to actually read would have to be straight hyperbole. You didn't say it, he did.

But yes you make some valid points about rings size, but again big aero rings get heavier and heavier upfront quickly and less aero, and then you need a big cog in the back. Remember, the best cyclists use big cogs when they are climbing, but the fastest TTers on flatland also tend to be some of the heaviest which works against them when they are going up hill as well and often need bigger rear cogs as well which are heavier and less aero when not in use. Then there is what equipment is readily available. SRAM made a 54T X-Sync originally as the largest size, I don't even now what else is available now but there are a lot of factors that are going into determining this which I think is the real point to this whole discussion... 1x is right for some and may be less of a good choice or even a bad choice for others. I have pretty much said this all along.

However specifically, If we simplify the discussion and say Andrew Starkowicz has ONLY the option of say a 56T chainring at Ironman Texas last week and he only used the 11t cog last week, would it have been better to move the 11th a little to the left for a better chainline or keep the 11 where it is? This is kind of what I was getting at. Yes maybe Andrew would have been better on 64T-14T using this example but it get tricky and complicated based on a variety of factors, conditions, elevation etc that are always changing from course-to-course, race-to-race. Having a 10t and only needing it for very specific situations while moving a more frequently used gear one space to the left for a better chainline isn't all that bad.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

They reduced the size of the chainrings in this piece but a strong professional rider doesn't need the size of the chainring reduced. They are not going down to a 48t. Starky isn't going to ride a 48t-10t. He is going to ride his 56t still or whatever he rides. I know this doesn't work for everyone but this is why I have said all along that 1x is the right choice for some and the wrong choice for others.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset