Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:



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


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.
Last edited by: trail: May 3, 19 6:05
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Rocket_racing] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rocket_racing wrote:
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).

I agree with this
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Thomas Gerlach wrote:



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


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.

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: Speed Hound vs Normatec | Top 10 Wetsuit Buying Tips | Best CHEAP cycling sunglasses | Normatec Pulse Gen 2 | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [trailerhouse] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trailerhouse wrote:
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.

Thomas Gerlach wrote:
trail wrote:
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
Ex-cyclist wrote:
Thomas Gerlach wrote:


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.


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


Not following. Why would that be dumb?


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.


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.

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: Speed Hound vs Normatec | Top 10 Wetsuit Buying Tips | Best CHEAP cycling sunglasses | Normatec Pulse Gen 2 | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply

Prev Next