Sram engineering + reliability strike again

[Rekalcitrant]

I have been riding 1x on the road lately. Why? I think it’s less hassle for CX, and then I used my CX bike for some gravel races in the spring and I wanted to be able to get in some road training on the same bike. Also, it was just an experiment. FWIW, I have mostly been impressed. It’s pretty neat to be able to do more or less everything on one bike, the range afforded by a 10-42 cassette is crazy, the jump between gears hasn’t bothered me as much as I expected, and it’s just nice and simple, easy to maintain, etc. BUT, the thing I am surprised by is that there hasn’t been more talk about losses to friction with a SRAM 1x drivetrain. Compared to the 11s Campy stuff on my road bike, it’s really noisy and just doesn’t feel smooth. I’d be shocked if there aren’t watts being lost here. Have yet to see any talk about this, which surprises me. Have I missed something? Also makes me wonder if the 1x system being used by the pros might be something other than standard issue; maybe it has a smoother clutch RD that ends up more prone to chain drops? Dunno.

[FriarQuade]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

It’s completely pointless, we have had good doubles since the 1970s for God’s sake.

By who's standard? The gear that's available now is so far from what we had in the 90's, much less the 70's. If you want to go back to pay phones, leaded gas, friction shifting, down tube shifters, quill stems and straight blocks go right ahead. Don't be surprised when nobody follows you though.

Progress is rarely a smooth road. **** like this happens and we normally come out better on the other side. Is 1X going to take over on road bikes? Probably not. Is it a good choice for professionals who spend a vast majority of their miles in the big ring, it's getting there. This story line is part of getting there. I'll say it again, I don't think this is a SRAM problem. There's a lot of things a frame manufacturer can do to screw up a drivetrain. SRAM created the 1X craze and they've done a great job of it since day one. There's no reason to think that because it's driving skinny tires it's not going to work as well as it does in every other application.

[simonov]

Originally Posted by nickl

One thing to have an isolated failure but quite another when a pro team expresses general dissatisfaction with their gear.

SRAM is really pushing speed setups for the sport to the point where it appears they would like to see the FD entirely eliminated. Their fingerprints were all over this and you would have to believe this bad PR is on them.

How is SRAM pushing 1x setups? 3T designed the bike that this team is using to be 1X for marginal and debatable aero gains and they're using a group designed for cyclocross for top level road racing. SRAM's current generation mechanical FDs are as good, and sometimes better, than those from the other companies. If SRAM was all over the decisions about what this team is using, they'd be on 2x eTap setups, since that's their top of the line race group.

[Peter P.]

It seems the team should be riding unproven equipment IN TRAINING and leaving the proven setups for races. They can then give the manufacturer feedback under plenty of miles so they can tweak their designs.

My guess is that can't be done due to contract language. Part of the product support may be the requirement to use the parts during competition for visibility/advertising purposes.

[batman1425]

I don't think it's any secret that Sram is making a coordinated push to 1X for the foreseeable future across it's ranges, but I doubt they would push product they didn't think was capable. They aren't willingly going to set themselves up for a PR disaster.

In reality, I think a sizable portion of the amateur road riding population would be functionally happy with a 1X road setup. I'd say 95-97% of my road riding could be satisfied with a 48T ring and an 11-36 cassette.

Do I think that 1X is appropriate for pro level road? Outside of specific instances (flat crit/tt) No. That said, I doubt someone forced Aqua Blue to take this 3T/Sram deal. Both sides felt they were getting something of value out of this arrangement. Was Aqua Blue in such dire straights for sponsors that they had to take this 3T/Sram proposal or risk folding? They are still on Ridley TT bikes, are they buying those out of pocket, leftovers from last year, a second sponsor deal? Aqua Blue almost certainly had a chance to ponder "you know, is it really a good idea to box ourselves into 1X for the entire season?" Unless they were promised something that Sram has yet to deliver - which none of the reports indicate is the case, this sounds like sour grapes. Plenty of other instances of mech failure ruining stage wins, but you don't see the mud being slung at Campy or Shimano when a chain snaps mid sprint. I think Aqua Blue is passing the hard luck and results onto the equipment issues, regrets the 1X choice (pushback from riders???), and doesn't care if they piss off Sram in the process.

[batman1425]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Who was it, famous bike toss during TdF, ITT and he wanted his front der and small ring off(?)...David Millar?

David Millar had another great bike throw after getting mechanical-ed out of a possible giro stage 5 win in '08. Snapped chain at 1K to go. Dura ace. Nobody went crying about garbage Shimano stuff after that happened. Mechanicals at bad times happen. It sucks but it happens.

Further, I'd put $20 on the rider dissatisfaction being that they don't like 1X for road applications (which is reasonable IMO, but is a different issue than the "lab rat" with unproven tech) not that it doesn't function how it should. 1X has been pretty well sussed out in applications far more likely to cause a function problem than road.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by batman1425

David Millar had another great bike throw after getting mechanical-ed out of a possible giro stage 5 win in '08. Snapped chain at 1K to go. Dura ace. Nobody went crying about garbage Shimano stuff after that happened. Mechanicals at bad times happen. It sucks but it happens.

Further, I'd put $20 on the rider dissatisfaction being that they don't like 1X for road applications (which I think is reasonable IMO, but is a different issue than the "lab rat" with unproven tech) not that it doesn't function how it should. 1X has been pretty well sussed out in applications far more likely to cause a function problem than road.

There was a LOT of 'shimano is garbage' comments after that episode. With Riis and how he couldn't get into his pedal(LOOK) also..

NOT the impression I got from this.

Cyclingnews understands the bikes have been unpopular amongst the Aqua Blue Sport riders since their implementation,

Just want to say what a privilege it was to be behind @MarkChristian8 today @tds so so strong., only to be dropped by mechanical no 4698 this season... This lab rat thing is now costing results

Mechanical 'number' 4698

And I don't really understand how a frameset 'design' would contribute to all sorts of mechanicals with this 1by system(or any system for that matter)..assuming all had the same clutch rear ders and narrow-wide chainrings...what about a frameset design would contribute to mechanicals?

[charliedid]

Really? Not one person is pointing the finger at the rider?

Sorry but dropped chains on SRAM 1x is not a widely know problem and most of it is run on ATB and CX bikes.

Gimme a break.

[batman1425]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

And I don't really understand how a frameset 'design' would contribute to all sorts of mechanicals with this 1by system(or any system for that matter)..assuming all had the same clutch rear ders and narrow-wide chainrings...what about a frameset design would contribute to mechanicals?

Chainstay length. The 2018 Sram tech docs say 395mm minimum for 1X setups. The Strada is listed at 405 but 3T may have tweaked the rear end alignment or relative BB location because it is a 1x only setup which might change that range for this particular frame. Sram say in the tech docs that drops from the big ring under load are a risk if chainstay length is not optimal. What is optimal could be debatable in this case depending on the specific geometry of the Strada, ring size, etc.

The 2017 tech docs made a distinction about 130 vs. 135/142 hub spacing for 2x11 setups where anything with 135mm spacing needed at minimum 405mm for a 50T big ring, 410mm for a 52, and 430mm for a 53. No mention of a different standard for 1X in those docs that I can find though the 1x ring is in a different location that either the big or little ring on a 2x, so unclear of these numbers would be directly transferrable to a 1x application.

Most of the bikes that 1X functions smoothly on are cross and gravel bikes which typically have much longer chainstays than the Strada. Clutch RD and narrow wide rings all help, but if this setup is at the limit of chain angle tolerance, quite reasonable that world tour watts could flex/stress things enough to cause problems.

[Mzilliox]

Im not surprised at all a pro would be upset with the lack of gears. what i am surprised about are the dropped chain comments. I run the sram clutched RD and narrow wide chainring and cannot imagine dropping a chain. I dropped chains off my 2x gravel bike 3 times on this one washboard road descent. That was one of my reasons to go to 1x for the new gravel bike. Same road on the 1x clutched RD and not even a hint of the chain dropping.

now i know these pros pedals hard and shift hard, but sheesh, if i cant throw a chain on the worst section of gravel road that threw 2x chains off for appetizers, then how?

now the gearing jumps, thats something i could see a pro getting upset about. I see them as a positive for the riding i do, but there have been times when i can't find the gear i want. Dedicated road riding would not be on my list of best uses.

[colker]

Originally Posted by batman1425

Chainstay length. The 2018 Sram tech docs say 395mm minimum for 1X setups. The Strada is listed at 405 but 3T may have tweaked the rear end alignment or relative BB location because it is a 1x only setup which might change that range for this particular frame. Sram say in the tech docs that drops from the big ring under load are a risk if chainstay length is not optimal. What is optimal could be debatable in this case depending on the specific geometry of the Strada, ring size, etc.

The 2017 tech docs made a distinction about 130 vs. 135/142 hub spacing for 2x11 setups where anything with 135mm spacing needed at minimum 405mm for a 50T big ring, 410mm for a 52, and 430mm for a 53. No mention of a different standard for 1X in those docs that I can find though the 1x ring is in a different location that either the big or little ring on a 2x, so unclear of these numbers would be directly transferrable to a 1x application.

Most of the bikes that 1X functions smoothly on are cross and gravel bikes which typically have much longer chainstays than the Strada. Clutch RD and narrow wide rings all help, but if this setup is at the limit of chain angle tolerance, quite reasonable that world tour watts could flex/stress things enough to cause problems.

There is zero trouble w/a front derrailleur. Perfect chainline w/ 2x. Perfect tight gearing.
1x on road racing bikes is bad.
The end.

[batman1425]

Originally Posted by colker

There is zero trouble w/a front derrailleur. Perfect chainline w/ 2x. Perfect tight gearing.
1x on road racing bikes is bad.
The end.

In general 2X will have better chainlines assuming cross chaining is avoided. 1X setups have to be put somewhere in the middle where the upper and lower cassette extremes will be sub optimal, hence why chainstay length matters in this context. If its too short, that chainline is going to get very acute at the ends of the cassette - which frequently are where a rider is going to be putting out the biggest watts - and raises the risk of dropped chains.

Gravel and cross bikes have much longer stays. Makes this less of a issue. Road bike with tight rear end geometry = chain angle problems. As was mentioned earlier in this thread - I bet if you put these groups on a different frame, they work great and this is a frame compatibility problem.

[Jaybee]

Many racers have had issues w chain drops using front derailleurs. Andy Schleck v. Contador 2010 comes to mind.

I wonder if they are using the 3T cassette instead of the SRAM version.

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by batman1425

In general 2X will have better chainlines assuming cross chaining is avoided. 1X setups have to be put somewhere in the middle where the upper and lower cassette extremes will be sub optimal, hence why chainstay length matters in this context. If its too short, that chainline is going to get very acute at the ends of the cassette - which frequently are where a rider is going to be putting out the biggest watts - and raises the risk of dropped chains.

Gravel and cross bikes have much longer stays. Makes this less of a issue. Road bike with tight rear end geometry = chain angle problems. As was mentioned earlier in this thread - I bet if you put these groups on a different frame, they work great and this is a frame compatibility problem.

I agree. Which is a little ironic, since by using a 1x only frame, they essentially locked themselves into SRAM.

[colker]

Originally Posted by batman1425

In general 2X will have better chainlines assuming cross chaining is avoided. 1X setups have to be put somewhere in the middle where the upper and lower cassette extremes will be sub optimal, hence why chainstay length matters in this context. If its too short, that chainline is going to get very acute at the ends of the cassette - which frequently are where a rider is going to be putting out the biggest watts - and raises the risk of dropped chains.

Gravel and cross bikes have much longer stays. Makes this less of a issue. Road bike with tight rear end geometry = chain angle problems. As was mentioned earlier in this thread - I bet if you put these groups on a different frame, they work great and this is a frame compatibility problem.

Chainstays on racing road bikes are usually 407mm. Look for something else to blame.