#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The only system where the dummy lever really makes sense is if you decide to go SRAM since the 1x clutched RDs aren't 2x compatible for road/cross bikes |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
With that said, this is all very individual, and right now for me, 2x system is the best overall for the racing and riding I do. I just don't see any of the purported advantages of a 1x outweighing what I get from a wide-range 2x. system. You have to keep in mind, that my "gravel" bike also gets used for fast road rides where I'm using 700x28 tires, and also gets used with 700x38, 700x40, 650x42, 650x48. So...that's a huge consideration for a nice wide gearing like 50-34 paired with various cassettes - 11-28, 11-32, 11-34, 11-36, 11-40. Anyway, this really is very individual, so it's hard to be prescriptive with comments/opinions. Last edited by Bonesbrigade; 01-18-2018 at 02:56 PM. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Great discussion of which I can add little I imagine, but do have some thoughts/questions.
On my 1X with the clutch on, the shifting is very stiff, clunky almost. Not as smooth up/down shifts. I’ve wondered, does this cause more wear to chain, rings, cogs? The extreme chainlines is another part of the 1X that makes me wince once in awhile, when in the extreme hi or low. How does that impact wear? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
For chain and cog wear, there must be more wear for sure. I've had my small cogs wear out prematurely on a couple of 1x systems where I always seems to be in the last 3 cogs - I've never had that happen on a 2x system. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
I think this may also be due to the fact that for most people they end up using the smallest 3 cogs more on a 1x than a similar 2x set up hence they wear quicker. I know on my 2x road bikes, I'm not in the 11,12, or 13 anywhere near as often as I am on my 1x cross bike
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, we are agreeing! I also feel the difference from what you describe.
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
These mentioned 1X downsides in the last few posts are either a given with any CX, gravel, mtb designed primarily for off-road (dirt, grime, mud, is going to wear out any drive train, 2X or 1X, far sooner than the increased use of the smaller cogs on a 1X drive train on the road) or only applicable to Road-specific use cases. I think it’s beem established in this thread and common knowledge that 1X has several downsides to a 2X drive train on asphalt. I think that’s re-stating the obvious. For single track and gravel rides with more gravel than asphalt, lots of extended climbing (The Crusher has 10,000 feet of climbing), lots of technical high speed descents, there is simply no way a 2X drive train is going to be superior to a 1X drive train. There are pros and cons with each, and I choose 1X for the benefits I’ve already called out, which for me, FAR outweigh any gearing advantages of 2X. Those advantages only apply to higher close riding pack speeds.
I have never seen any evidence that this so called innefficiency pedaling a 40/10 on a 1X vs middle of the cassette on a 2X is even remotely measurable. Maybe there is a study out there supporting that, but I am guessing that’s in your head. Probably the same reason people incorrectly thing those large der pulleys are more efficient. They aren’t. There is zero proof of that. In any case this thread is about Road 1X, not the merits of 1X vs 2X off Road. I’m firmly of the opinion that 1X on the road is a non-stater for me for group rides and absolutely not doable (for me at least) for any competitive Road race around here...except for a few they all have lots of climbing and lots of high speed descending. I do the Lotoja every year - Masters 35+ Cat 4 group. The last two years, the selection occurred on the first long 20 mile descent into Montpelier...not on any of the climbs. Everyone in the top 8 made it into the breakaway that started at the top of Strawberry. The first 10 miles of that descent you are spinning out a 52x11. The only reason that group stayed away (5 min gap to the rest of the field by the time we rolled into Montpelier at the bottom) is because a) we were paying attention as we crested the top and powered our 50/11s and 52/11s as long as we could to create the initial gap b) we were all in super-tuck mode for the first 5 Miles of descending. There is no way anyone with a 1X drive train on their bikes would have been able to hang. They either would have been dropped on the climb because they didn’t have a low enough gear or they would have spun out much sooner on the descent. Last edited by Wayne77; 01-18-2018 at 05:31 PM. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It is true that bicycle applications are a bit different from most machinery chain applications, since bicycle drivetrains tend to be lower speed and higher tension than most chain drives, plus derailleur drivetrains run their chains with far more misalignment than most machines. But, there have been multiple tests of bicycle drivetrain efficiency. For example, these two issues of the Technical Journal of the IHPVA examine chain drive efficiency test data: http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp51-2001.pdf One of the more recent, and probably most pertinent, chain drive efficiency tests was done by a test house called Friction Facts. Their articles and data are behind a pay-wall, but here is an article from BikeRadar about their testing of 2x drivetrain efficiencies: http://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gea...hifting-44016/ Their testing shows not only that smaller sprockets are less efficient, but also that the loss of efficiency in smaller sprockets often overwhelms the losses due to misaligned chains. This means that it is often the case that for the same final gear ratio, a cross-chained gear combination with a large chainring can often be preferable to a well aligned gear combination with small chainring. Oh, and you're also wrong about there being zero proof that oversized pulleys are more efficient. There have been multiple studies (including by third party groups that don't even make derailleur pulleys) showing that larger pulleys are more efficient. Not a lot more efficient, but it is measurable. Last edited by Mark McM; 01-19-2018 at 09:18 AM. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is one of the reasons why a lot of time trialists use very large chainrings in the front 56t - so they can be closer to the middle of their cassettes using larger cogs - more efficient. I've also seen wind tunnel data showing the efficiency gains of the larges cogs with less chain angle more than offsets the small aero penalty of a larger chainring. Believe me, I like 1x systems. I have 9 bikes, and 6 of them have 1x drivetrains setup. For me, road and gravel bikes just don't make sense with 11speed shifting. I suspect in the next couple of years, those formats will make more sense with 12 and 13 drivetrains coming out. Boost road bikes here we come! |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Chisholm's Custom Wheels Qui Si Parla Campagnolo |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for taking the time to post that - I’ll give it a read. Looks like there’s definitely some good info out there that supports this. I stand corrected.
Just like so many other minute gains relating to various cycling components...large der pulleys, ceramic bearings, aero bars, various subtle shaping in aero frame designs, they may all add up to a material increase in efficiency. It’s certainly a way to make the whole system faster. 2 final points, and I’ll let it be: - I seriously doubt this inneficiecy can actually be felt by anyone on a gravel bike let alone a road bike, as has been claimed. Seriously. Someone tells us a doo-dad is faster and therefore the brain tells us we feel faster. So either we aren’t in reality any faster or if we are it’s because we put more effort into going faster because we’re so dang excited to have something we think is faster. Double blind A-B testing anyone? I would put money down no would be able to consistently discern any difference here. - This comment isn’t really directed to you but let’s be real. We’re talking gravel biking here. We aren’t pros looking for every single last possible tweak to eeke out a few seconds in a TT. I’d suggest that if inneficiences pedaling a smaller cog at 25mph is any major factor for someone considering 1x vs 2x they are missing the point...and completely ignoring benefits and factors (with 1X or 2X) that DO make a difference and can be felt ...If someone is competitive enough where such marginal gains are important maybe they should look elsewhere for the gains first...maybe get lighter cages :-) Quote:
|
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Snipped:
Quote:
Let’s get back on topic (Road 1X). I’ve contributed to beating this dead horse more than than most...There’s indeed a shared passion here and I do enjoy these discussions with people who have a lot of great ideas to share. Thanks a ton for taking the time to share your experiences - good discussion. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
However, I do believe that adding up a bunch of small improvements: aero gains, crr, drivetrain efficiency, and weight (and a bunch of other things) can produce a significant advantage - this is the way I approach race bikes. There is race in the Toronto area called Paris to Ancaster. It is a mixed condition route where you are on rail trails, gravel roads, single track, unmaintained farm fields and paved roads. I believe it is one of the biggest races in NA if I'm not mistaken with well over 1,000 people (maybe more). Anyway, it's hotly contested and there is a variety of terrain you have to account for in terms of tire selection and gearing. This happened to be the first time doing the event last year, so I went into it without much knowledge and poor prep. My first mistake was being lazy and leaving my 1x cx gearing on there (early spring race) - though I did bump the chainring from 40 to 44, and put an 11-34 cassette on - I knew the route was flatish, so I figured this should be fine. All was good for the majority of the race until the last climb! The finale is 5min. or so climb that is maybe 7 or 8% on a jeep trail. I was in the front chasing group of 8, with 3 people about a minute up (one of them my teammate). So we entered the climb fighting for 4th. The punchy pro guys like Anthony Clark, pro crosser Ian Field from England and a couple of others went ballistic, I was good for the first bit, but my lazy gearing selection completely bogged me down! I was totally going backwards. I ended up finishing 10th 2 or 3 seconds, just behind Adam Myerson. I'm certainly not blaming a 1x system on this as it was totally my fault for being lazy about not knowing the course and just leaving my cx drivetrain on there. But man, was I wishing I just had my totally versatile 50-34 11-32 system on there. The 2x gearing with wide range can really take the guess work out of preparation when riding in new areas for races or road trips. Kind of a set and forget approach that ticks almost all the boxes. I agree, great discussion! Last edited by Bonesbrigade; 01-19-2018 at 11:28 AM. |
|
|