Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [SBRinSD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRinSD wrote:
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.

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
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Bonesbrigade] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bonesbrigade wrote:
DV8R wrote:
it's very simple
1x for gravel/cross/mountain
2x for road/tri


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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [SBRinSD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [NordicSkier] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NordicSkier wrote:
Bonesbrigade wrote:
DV8R wrote:
it's very simple
1x for gravel/cross/mountain
2x for road/tri


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.


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.

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

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [SBRinSD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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).
Last edited by: Rocket_racing: May 2, 19 14:35
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
dangle wrote:
Personally, I would have like to have seen the chain standardized. At least they did the same 'treatment' to each one.


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


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..
Last edited by: CyclingClyde: May 2, 19 15:07
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [s13tx] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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).
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gary p wrote:
Ugh, could they have introduced any more variables into that to muddy the results? Why didn't they test Force 1 against Force 22?

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

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!"
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:

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

--
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [SBRinSD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [DarkSpeedWorks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Red is 1x 48t. Blue is 2x 53t. Green is 2x 39t. Watts vs ratio.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [NordicSkier] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NordicSkier wrote:
Bonesbrigade wrote:
DV8R wrote:
it's very simple
1x for gravel/cross/mountain
2x for road/tri


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.

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.

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.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Ex-cyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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?


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
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
NordicSkier wrote:
Bonesbrigade wrote:
DV8R wrote:
it's very simple
1x for gravel/cross/mountain
2x for road/tri


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.


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.


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

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.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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...
Last edited by: rruff: May 2, 19 21:56
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.


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

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
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [NordicSkier] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NordicSkier wrote:
Bonesbrigade wrote:
DV8R wrote:
it's very simple
1x for gravel/cross/mountain
2x for road/tri


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.


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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Rocket_racing] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rocket_racing wrote:
Yeah...
I have used all of the setups mentioned, so I am practically THE expert on the topic.

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.

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!)
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [DarkSpeedWorks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
rruff wrote:


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?


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"
Last edited by: gary p: May 3, 19 3:55
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.

What's your CdA?
Quote Reply
Re: VeloNews says 1x mostly sucks [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:

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.


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)

Quote Reply

Prev Next