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.
A chain catcher and 2x is probably the right solution for most.
Yes.
A chain catcher and 2x is probably the right solution for most.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OMG!!! The laws of Physics win again!!!
The earth is flat and I want my 10t!!!
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.
it’s very simple
1x for gravel/cross/mountain
2x for road/tri
.
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.
https://www.velonews.com/...mp;mc_cid=8115c7a390
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?
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.
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.
Totally agree that mtb = 1x. No brainer, it just works.
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… :-/
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.
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.
Personally, I would have like to have seen the chain standardized. At least they did the same ‘treatment’ to each one.
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.
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.