1x why?

[quixoticgeek]

I notice that there's lots of 1x10 1x11 groupsets out there. I'm kinda curious what the rationale is behind these. A 1x10 looks to have similar range to the 2x5's of classic bikes. Does removing the front mech give much advantage?

Thanks

J

[sojournermike]

Weight, less to worry about when shifting, chain security off-road, relative simplicity, just makes a nice ride, my Shimano left shifter is broken and I am tight/don't want to discard an otherwise functional groupset

[quixoticgeek]

Is there any issue with cross chaining with a 1x11?

J

[Dibdib]

A friend of mine has a 1x11 gravel/commuter bike and loves it - hasn't complained of any problems with it (well not the drivetrain anyway).

[Jakob W]

AIUI cross-chaining isn't that much of an issue with flexy 11-speed chains anyhow, and with 1x chainline it's basically non-existant; at least my mates running 1x setups have never had any problems.

[Jakob]

The question should probably more be:
Does 3x gives you that much advantage?

Then again, I ride fixed gear

[Greenbank]

The more front chainrings you have the more dramatic cross-chaining effects will be.

With a single front chainring the optimum chainline would place the chain on the middle (e.g. 6th) gear of a 1x11 setup, or inbetween 5th and 6th gear of a 1x10 setup. The worst case chainline will then only be 5 gears left or right of this optimum.

With a double front chainring the chainrings are usually spaced 1 further apart than the cogs in the cassette. If this is the equivalent of a single rear sprocket between the two then they're similar to sitting aligned with 5th and 7th gears of a 11 speed cassette. So the worst case chainline is now 6 gears (front chain ring aligned to 5th, rear in 11th).

With a triple you're looking at the chainrings aligned to 4th, 6th and 8th rear cogs, so the worst case chainline is now 7 gears (4th at front to 11th at rear, or 8th at front to 1st at rear).

Lots of people use it for reduced complexity.

TT-ers favour it because 1x11 still gives them a good enough range of gears to TT with and there's a not so insignificant drag reduction getting rid of the front mech and second chainring.

[Brucey]

for the pros see above posts. For the cons (vs a putative 2 x 6 system say);

a) - 1x 11s has a worse wheel dish (weaker/heavier wheel)
b) - the chainlines are terrible.   
c) - the 'cruising sprockets' are relatively small with a 1x system
d) - the 'chain security' argument is moot
e) - you cannot make a 'block shift' if you want to

a) means that the latest generation of MTBs now has offset back ends and even (I think) offset cranksets etc.  If you had a ~130mm back end with (say) six sprockets on it, the wheel could be dishless with a wide flange spacing and the transmission could be set up symmetric with a low Q value.
b) means that when you are using the extreme gears, you are cross-chained about the same as (say) using sprocket #10 with the inside chainring of a 2x11 setup. This is inefficient and causes rapid wear. [claims that cross-chaining is 'worse' with more chainrings are entirely disingenuous; you don't use those gears, duh... .]
c) suppose that you have a x4 gear range (say) and you set it up for 24" to 96". A ~70" gear means using a ~14T sprocket.  This size of sprocket is both inefficient and will wear rapidly.  If you skew the gear range towards the lower gears, you end up using smaller sprockets still to get that gear ratio.
e) means that some canny MTB racers have not gone with the 1x11 approach; they like being able to do a block shift on the chainrings.

So overall I'd suppose that it is somewhere between 'not for everyone' and 'a pretty poor arrangement' depending on how you look at it.  The only reason a 1x system is lighter than a 2x system is because everyone takes it for granted that you must have heavy shifters and  10 or 11 sprockets at the back regardless 'because that is what modern bikes have'.
  I think that (say) a 2x6 system (using modern materials) could have a stronger/lighter rear wheel, a better/symmetric Q, a better chainline, sprockets/chain that run better and last longer, would be more efficient, and would weigh about the same or perhaps even less. That is quite a lot of benefit in return for the penalty of a double-shift....?

-just my two-pence-worth, anyway....

cheers

[Kim]

e) - you cannot make a 'block shift' if you want to

Depends on the shifter surely?  With a bar-end/thumb or grip shifter you can crash up and down the cassette with impunity.

[Brucey]

e) - you cannot make a 'block shift' if you want to

Depends on the shifter surely?  With a bar-end/thumb or grip shifter you can crash up and down the cassette with impunity.

I guess, but with a slick front downshift you might miss what,  one pedal stroke? I doubt it will (safely) be as little as that with a multiple rear shift across half the block?

cheers

[Bolt]

I'm with Brucey on this one.  I reckon the front derailleur would be regarded as the panacea for 1x setups if it hadn't already been invented!

[Kim]

e) - you cannot make a 'block shift' if you want to

Depends on the shifter surely?  With a bar-end/thumb or grip shifter you can crash up and down the cassette with impunity.

I guess, but with a slick front downshift you might miss what,  one pedal stroke? I doubt it will (safely) be as little as that with a multiple rear shift across half the block?

I do it all the time (it's important to be in a low gear to get a recumbent moving), and it's fine.  A couple of pedal strokes.

Agreed that a front downshift is slicker, but it also doesn't change as far.  Swings and roundabouts, but I'd say they're roughly equivalent.

Pumping a trigger shifter (or presumably an STI) to get to the bottom of the block does take significantly longer.  I've got another 'bent with those (and a very wide triple which tends to drop the chain if you don't use sufficient finesse, so it's more like a reconfigurable 1x9 in normal use), and you do have to plan ahead a bit more.  I imagine a 1x11 MTB would be similar in operation.

I'm with Brucey on this one.  I reckon the front derailleur would be regarded as the panacea for 1x setups if it hadn't already been invented!

Indeed.

[mzjo]

I remember reading in a CTC mag in a youth hostel an article arguing against excessive chainline deflection and vaunting the merits of 3 at the back coupled to 3 at the front. Suitable selection of gearing gave near perfect chainline in the most important ratios. Of course at the time I had 1X5, it was 45 years ago. The closest I have seen to this was a Corrèzien cycletourist who had 4 rings coupled to 8 sprockets (with custom spacers to put the 4 rings in the same width as a triple). His logic though was to reduce the gap between the rings to make changing sweeter.

I have used 1X7 on an mtb, I didn't miss that much in gearing but I did lose the chain on the bottom sprocket sometimes (and the ring was in the middle position). I also like being able to change across the rings to get bigger gearing changes (sometimes I ride a triple like a 3speed). I also have an unreasonable prejudice against modern thin chains. If I wanted 1X11 gearing now it would called Alfine!

[Kim]

If I wanted 1X11 gearing now it would called Alfine!

GPWM!

[ElyDave]

e) - you cannot make a 'block shift' if you want to

Depends on the shifter surely?  With a bar-end/thumb or grip shifter you can crash up and down the cassette with impunity.

I guess, but with a slick front downshift you might miss what,  one pedal stroke? I doubt it will (safely) be as little as that with a multiple rear shift across half the block?

I do it all the time (it's important to be in a low gear to get a recumbent moving), and it's fine.  A couple of pedal strokes.

Agreed that a front downshift is slicker, but it also doesn't change as far.  Swings and roundabouts, but I'd say they're roughly equivalent.

Pumping a trigger shifter (or presumably an STI) to get to the bottom of the block does take significantly longer.  I've got another 'bent with those (and a very wide triple which tends to drop the chain if you don't use sufficient finesse, so it's more like a reconfigurable 1x9 in normal use), and you do have to plan ahead a bit more.  I imagine a 1x11 MTB would be similar in operation.

I'm with Brucey on this one.  I reckon the front derailleur would be regarded as the panacea for 1x setups if it hadn't already been invented!

Indeed.

I tend to think of my bent as more a 2 x 1 x 11 set up i.e. 2 x all the gears available due to the length and flexibility of chain eliminating any kind of cross chaining effects.  You do get used to putting in a couple of quick pumps on the STI when approaching a junction though.  To my credit I managed a right hand, uphill T with a car from my left and behind me with no kerfuffle and no hint of de-balancing on my last outing.  Got the gear right going into it.

[zigzag]

they have a place and i've been using such setups a decade ago, before they became fashionable. perfect for commuting and general riding about. for racing (be it mtb, gravel, road) i still prefer two or three chainrings in the front as i sometimes find myself spinning out in top gear on a double chainset (fwiw, going down a gentle hill (3-5%) it's easy to reach 60kph when i'll be spinning 110rpm on 52x12 and looking for a higher gear). alternatively it's handy to have a 1:1 low gear for steep climbs.

[Samuel D]

One reason may be that front derailleurs on STI systems require precise setup to work correctly. This is not hard but you have to follow the Shimano instructions rather than a random YouTube video, and people prefer YouTube. As a result, most (i.e. more than half) of the bicycles I examine don’t trim properly. No wonder front shifting has such a bad rep.

[Cudzoziemiec]

for the pros see above posts. For the cons (vs a putative 2 x 6 system say);

How does it compare to an Osgear? I could go out now and buy a range of road and mountain bikes with 1x drivetrains (if I had the money) while 2 x 6 was last seen on a new bike circa 1999. Surely a more appropriate comparison would be something like 3 x 10 or 2 x 11.

[DuncanM]

When I was choosing between "Endurance Road" and "Gravel" bikes, one of the main factors was the gearing setup.  Most gravel bikes seem to be 1x, and the jumps between gears would drive me mad.  I'm already being irritated by the way that my (2x11 compact with 11-32 cassette) setup has 2 tooth steps in the middle (11-12-13-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32). Spinning along in 50-16 is fine, but changing to 50-14 feels like it drops my cadence out of the sweet spot. I can't imagine what it would be like to ride on the road with something like this: 10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36-42!!!

[Brucey]

for the pros see above posts. For the cons (vs a putative 2 x 6 system say);

How does it compare to an Osgear?

oooh that'd be lovely, wouldn't it? 

  I could go out now and buy a range of road and mountain bikes with 1x drivetrains (if I had the money) while 2 x 6 was last seen on a new bike circa 1999. Surely a more appropriate comparison would be something like 3 x 10 or 2 x 11.

 

oh I must have imagined the new bikes I saw with 2x6 drivetrains just yesterday then.... ...

But seriously

a) bike designers (and customers, who appear to be happily lead by the technological nose, as it were) seem almost blinkered in their approach to bike design.  Honestly, if you the customer have not got the wit to ask for something sensible, it seems to me that you deserve what you get, which is likely to be something even stupider that last year's pointless fad (eg 'this one goes to eleven' ...duh... .)

b) There is absolutely nothing stopping you from fitting a x2 range set of chainrings and a x2 range freewheel (eg boring old 14-28) and thus generating a 12 speed gearing setup with a x4 range. 

c) I was eyeing up a singlespeed rear wheel hub only yesterday; it had wide-spaced flanges, an HG spline and enough room for at least four sprockets (the length is to allow chainline adjustment with spacers normally).  I think that a little surgery could allow fitment of an overhanging cluster at one end (eg from a cassette with a carrier built into it) thus giving a dishless rear wheel with six or so sprockets on it.

The beauty of bicycle engineering is that it is pretty simple at heart and you don't have to just put up with being spoon-fed whatever flavour of unadulterated crap the manufacturers are spewing out this week, if you don't want to. Use your imagination!

cheers

[Chris N]

c) I was eyeing up a singlespeed rear wheel hub only yesterday; it had wide-spaced flanges, an HG spline and enough room for at least four sprockets (the length is to allow chainline adjustment with spacers normally).  I think that a little surgery could allow fitment of an overhanging cluster at one end (eg from a cassette with a carrier built into it) thus giving a dishless rear wheel with six or so sprockets on it.

MTBers have been doing this for a while now (though probably not for much longer, with Boost spacing and the like).  Chris King and Hope singlespeed hubs will take 5 or 6 cogs with very little modification, and I've run a 4x 9 speed sprockets (14, 17, 21 and 27 IIRC) on a WTB SS hub in the past, using an Ultegra SS rear mech and 22/32 rings up front.

[fuaran]

For mountain bikes, in my experience front derailleurs regularly seize up, and don't work at all. So it makes sense to get rid of it, if you can get a wide enough range from the cassette.
I'm not too bothered about getting exactly the right cadence, or quickly changing up and down the gears. I'm not racing, and I ride fixed most of the time anyway...

[Chris N]

When I was choosing between "Endurance Road" and "Gravel" bikes, one of the main factors was the gearing setup.  Most gravel bikes seem to be 1x, and the jumps between gears would drive me mad.  I'm already being irritated by the way that my (2x11 compact with 11-32 cassette) setup has 2 tooth steps in the middle (11-12-13-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32). Spinning along in 50-16 is fine, but changing to 50-14 feels like it drops my cadence out of the sweet spot. I can't imagine what it would be like to ride on the road with something like this: 10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36-42!!!

I find the 11-32 cassette on my road bike a bit gappy too, but years of riding fixed has taught me not to worry about 'optimal' cadences and just to get on with it, regardless of gearing.

I'm not too bothered about getting exactly the right cadence, or quickly changing up and down the gears. I'm not racing, and I ride fixed most of the time anyway...

Ha, exactly.

[DuncanM]

When I was choosing between "Endurance Road" and "Gravel" bikes, one of the main factors was the gearing setup.  Most gravel bikes seem to be 1x, and the jumps between gears would drive me mad.  I'm already being irritated by the way that my (2x11 compact with 11-32 cassette) setup has 2 tooth steps in the middle (11-12-13-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32). Spinning along in 50-16 is fine, but changing to 50-14 feels like it drops my cadence out of the sweet spot. I can't imagine what it would be like to ride on the road with something like this: 10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36-42!!!

I find the 11-32 cassette on my road bike a bit gappy too, but years of riding fixed has taught me not to worry about 'optimal' cadences and just to get on with it, regardless of gearing.

Sure, but on the fix, I just go slower. If I'm on the road bike it's because I want to go fast (efficiently).

[Cudzoziemiec]

  I could go out now and buy a range of road and mountain bikes with 1x drivetrains (if I had the money) while 2 x 6 was last seen on a new bike circa 1999. Surely a more appropriate comparison would be something like 3 x 10 or 2 x 11.

 

oh I must have imagined the new bikes I saw with 2x6 drivetrains just yesterday then.... ...

I'm sure you didn't. Names, specs, etc? Where did you see them? Point being, that sort of componentry nowadays tends to be confined to rather low end stuff (unless it's a custom build or retrofitted, in which case it's hardly a new bike you can go out and buy) whereas 1x seems to be found mostly on mid to high-range bikes (though I expect on mtbs it's permeated further down). For example, the Sequoia I bought at the end of last year comes in three specs: the base version (which I bought) has 2 x 9, the top one has 1 x 11. The price differential is 2.5x (obviously there are some other component differences as well). In between is a 2 x 10 version. Interestingly, LBS said they'd sold several of the base version and several of the top but none of the middle.