Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 128 total)
  • 1 x 11 – not convinced
  • wl
    Free Member

    On the one hand manufacturers are banging on about having it all: 170mm sub-30lb bikes that open up more of the mountain. On the other hand, more bikes are coming with 1 x 11 set-ups (and sometimes no front mech compatibility) which means that in actual fact riders will have to push their shiny new bikes up the kind of long, steep and techy hills that proper mountains have (hills they’d have pedalled up with their old 2 x 10 set-ups). Plus the cost is crazy and those posh cassettes don’t last two minutes, or so I hear. So what’s the deal?

    nickc
    Full Member

    So what’s the deal?

    The cassettes have more teeth and offer about the same ratios as multi chain rings set ups?

    I suspect…

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    What he said. More teeth = better wear also.

    Keep up at the back!

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    asdfhjkl
    Free Member

    I’m a decent climber and have yet to come across anything (proper hills included) that I can’t ride up on my 36T cassette, nevermind with a 45T expander or whatever people use now. If I don’t ride it, it’s because gears wouldn’t make a difference and the bike’s on my shoulder instead. Going 1×10 or 1×11 is not for everyone but it’s great for those fit enough or who have it set up to meet their needs.

    honourablegeorge
    Full Member

    wl – Member

    So what’s the deal?

    The deal is that you don’t understand 1×11, and you’ve used that lack of understanding to make a pointless, uninformed mini rant.

    wl
    Free Member

    Ha, it’s true I’m a late adopter. Even so, the folk I know whose new bikes have 1 x 11 aren’t getting the lowest gears you need for super-steep climbs – gears I do have on my old-school 2 x10. Plus, despite the theory, I hear folk saying those massive rings on the back wear out super-quick in the real world. I’m not having a go – just genuinely a bit mystified about this ‘progress’.

    hopeychondriact
    Free Member

    I personally never found anything much wrong running 1×9 years ago.
    Am now on 1×10 only as things went that way but will resist the 11 urge thankyou very much.

    atm just building up a SS hard tail and am quite happy having a choice now.

    AlexSimon
    Full Member

    10-42t x 32t
    I promise that there isn’t a single climb that I haven’t managed to clear in the Peak District that I could on my 3×9. In fact I’ve got up a couple that I didn’t previously due to being forced to have a slight bit more momentum.
    It feels harder, but you adjust quickly.

    If I were somewhere where a climb might go on for more than an hour, I might be tempted to drop to a 30t.

    By the time you’ve pedalled out the top gear you’re going plenty quick enough for anything more interesting than fire road or totally wide open grassy slopes.

    I also really value the extra clearance, lack of clutter, lower weight and also the ability for manufacturers to try some different ideas out without being limited to front mechs.

    ymmv

    andytherocketeer
    Full Member

    The deal is… you get slapped down if you diss the latest fashion 😉

    I do, for daring to use tubes instead of Stan’s goo.

    2x makes more sense for what I ride. And I prefer to ride, rather than take my bike for a walk. But I can see the point of 1x. Although If I ever got 1x I’d at least want options… and funnily enough both Sram and Shimano have given exactly that on their latest 11sp releases. So 2×11 obviously isn’t “wrong” or unfashionable enough to release to the market.

    alexh
    Free Member

    I made sure in my 1x set up I still had a low enough gear that’s near comparable to a 2x set up. Sure I lost the equivalent of one gear, but for the climbs I need that type of gear I’m better off walking or running.

    nickc
    Full Member

    I think it’s partly down to SRAM trying to genuinely offer something that has as few drawbacks for the largest number of people as possible, that sets them apart from Shimano (as it did when it first came out) with fewer moving parts to wear out, and de-complicates setting up your bike.

    that; and I think in right in saying that the geometry changes needed to make FSLT 29ers work better was ideally to get rid of the front mech as it was impeding frame design, which SRAM have pretty much achieved.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    I’m not that strong but the only climbs I’ve walked on 1×10, are climbs I’d probably have walked on 2×10. The only time I really find it a downside is snow/ice where a real crawler gear can be useful to keep traction at a snail’s pace but 32/42 is a low, practical gear- pretty much equivalent to 22/28 after all

    honourablegeorge
    Full Member

    wl – Member
    On the one hand manufacturers are banging on about having it all: 170mm sub-30lb bikes that open up more of the mountain. On the other hand, more bikes are coming with 1 x 11 set-ups (and sometimes no front mech compatibility) which means that in actual fact riders will have to push their shiny new bikes up the kind of long, steep and techy hills that proper mountains have (hills they’d have pedalled up with their old 2 x 10 set-ups). Plus the cost is crazy and those posh cassettes don’t last two minutes, or so I hear. So what’s the deal?

    Fairly typical 2×10 setup has a lowest gear of 26×36 = .72

    Typical 32/42 1×11 is .76 – that’s pretty close. With a 30t (.714) or even 28t front ring, it’s lower than the above.

    42t cog will wear much the same most other cassette cogs by virtue of the size, even though it’s alu – and it’s replaceable.

    ton
    Full Member

    I am with the OP. 1 x 10/11 is fashion led. ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless.
    good old 3 x 9 was and still is far better.
    and don’t quote the weight saving crap…..most men can afford to lose a stone or 2. adding the weight of a front mech/shifter/ring mean nil.

    chakaping
    Free Member

    I thought the same as you OP, but some of my friends are on Sram 11sp and I’ve had a few tries and had to admit I was wrong.

    It does give a low enough crawler gear to climb mountains.

    Dave
    Free Member

    ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless.

    Lollerz!

    ton
    Full Member

    Lollerz!

    you are obviously going to like it. 😀

    andylc
    Free Member

    I thought the same until I got a bike with it on. 30T at front 10-42 at back perfect for everything I used to ride on 3×9, and with no lost chains, near silent and faultless operation. Wouldn’t go back.

    wl
    Free Member

    There’s clearly no right and wrong. For me personally though, I can just ride up the climb from Honnister visitor centre to the quarry at the top, but only using the very lowest of my 2 x 10 set-up. I know for sure I’d not make it in any gear that’s higher, even slightly higher. There are others hills like this too, so for me 2 x 10 seems the best bet as I’d rather pedal than carry whenever possible.

    Hob-Nob
    Free Member

    I am with the OP. 1 x 10/11 is fashion led. ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless.
    good old 3 x 9 was and still is far better.
    and don’t quote the weight saving crap…..most men can afford to lose a stone or 2. adding the weight of a front mech/shifter/ring mean nil.

    Nice sweeping generalisation 🙂

    nickc
    Full Member

    There are others hills like this too, so for me 2 x 10 seems the best bet as I’d rather pedal than carry whenever possible.

    If it works for you, then it’s cool, there’s no-one forcing you to adopt a gear system that isn’t right for you, and certainly no one sized fits all solution.

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    There’s nothing wrong with a multi-ring chainset or a 1xn drivetrain, different strokes for different folks and all that. Most of us using 1xn will have arrived at it after plenty of time spent using 2x/3x setups so it’s not like we just happened upon it…

    If you don’t ‘get it’ no worries it’s probably not for you, they still make multi-ring chainsets because there’s still a market for them, no need to snipe at those of us who make slighty different drivetrain choices life’s much too short…

    ton
    Full Member

    Nice sweeping generalisation

    typical stw answer……. 😆

    cultsdave
    Free Member

    I am with the OP. 1 x 10/11 is fashion led. ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless

    Haha, nonsense. I rarely ride trail centres and find 1×10 32 front 36 rear almost fine for many of the big mountain days I have done local to here in Aberdeen. If you don’t like 1x that’s fine but don’t talk nonsense, no-one is forcing it upon you. I will be going 1×11 when the new xt 11-42 cassettes are available as it will make the climbs easier but if I can’t get up them in that gear a lower gear is not the answer.

    julians
    Free Member

    10-42t x 32t
    I promise that there isn’t a single climb that I haven’t managed to clear in the Peak District that I could on my 3×9

    Same for me.

    1 x 10 or 11 for my riding there is no downside. And its rare that I ride in a trail centre these days, most of the time I’m riding in the peaks, wales, or lakes.

    beano68
    Free Member

    It does get easier for sure, I’m running 42×10 and had a 32t fitted as standard but dropped to a 30t and will be changing back to the 32t again shortly as I’m spinning too much.

    I love the x11 as its fast and ideal for my style but its sooooo sodding expensive tho 😕

    m360
    Free Member

    old-school 2 x10

    You lost me at this…MOST of the mountain bikes out their (actually ridden regularly, not in magazine adverts) are still running 3×8 or 3×9.

    Blackflag
    Free Member

    ??? Anyone who knows me knows im pretty unfit. And not in a kind of false modesty way, i am truly unfit and often at the back on most rides.

    Ive been on 1 x 11 for a few months now using a 30t front ring. having ridden in the lakes, peaks and dreaded train centres i am happy to say the 1 x 11 set up has not held me up at all. There is hardly any difference in ratios from my old 2 x 9 set up and if anyone could notice a difference it would be me cos i need all the help i can get.

    wl
    Free Member

    Worth starting this post just for the touchy replies – typical STW. I’ll no doubt end up with 1 x 11 eventually, but mainly because manufacturers are moving that way. Who knows, maybe I’ll even think it makes sense one day, but not if it means I have to push up hills I once rode.

    core
    Full Member

    I remember several threads where people had gone 1x, but elected to run a granny ring without a front mech, so if the going gets really tough they could stop and manually switch front rings.

    I guess a triple crank is the better bet for this than a double though to get a better chain line?

    Not sure how much weight running granny and bash rings would add?

    Northwind
    Full Member

    ton – Member

    I am with the OP. 1 x 10/11 is fashion led. ok for trail center stuff that the blokes who like it ride. places like the lakes where proper mtb riders frequent, it is nigh on useless.

    So by extension there must have been no such thing as a proper mountain biker until about 1999, since up til then the bikes were nigh on useless for the places they frequent? What with smaller cassettes and larger granny rings, which gave higher bottom gears than today’s 1×11 bikes. I remember how we all just rode around forestry commission car parks and hoped someone would invent the trail centre.

    (I may be slightly off on the year… There were 32T 8-speed blocks but I think the groupsets of the time generally came with 26T grannies? So just in case- the point is that it’s only fairly recently that mountain bikes aquired such low gears; my 1×10 bikes are lower geared than my 90s bikes)

    convert
    Full Member

    My take on 1X is that is works brilliantly for two groups – the skinny little runts (I’m just jealous!) with a good power to weight ratio and the proper biffer wheezers. The first group can get up the hills no bother with the slightly reduced bottom range. The 2nd were always walking at the very mention of a hill so it makes no odds. If you are somewhere in the middle and especially if you pride yourself on never walking it might not work so well.

    Personally if I went 1X I’d prefer to suffer spinning out at the top end and put a small (maybe even 28T on a 29er) chainring on so the soft aluminium 42T was a rarely used emergency gear and I was mostly near the top of the cassette.

    chiefgrooveguru
    Full Member

    Why is it that no-one seems to talk about cadence, torque or power on these threads?

    From my experience, and a quick scan of the numerous articles Google brings up, lower cadence is often more efficient than higher cadence but higher cadence causes less muscle fatigue. Obviously to run less low gears then you need the leg strength to make up for the lower mechanical advantage but that’s something which most riders will develop when their lower gears are removed.

    So it isn’t so much about how steep the climbs are but about how long your rides are.

    The other side of the coin is the high gears – most riders don’t realise how fast they can spin with a bit of practice. I stopped pedalling coming down a road hill last week at 35mph odd – that’s on 34-11 on a 26″ (I topped out at 47mph). That gear is equivalent to 30:10 on SRAM 11 speed, which would give you a bottom gear of 30:42 which is barely different to 22:32 which was the normal 3×9 lowest gear.

    no_eyed_deer
    Free Member

    MOST of the mountain bikes out their (actually ridden regularly, not in magazine adverts) are still running 3×8 or 3×9.

    Totes.

    3×9 here – on 7 MTBs, 3×8 here on one other.

    2×10, or 1×11 would be positively hi-tech for me, but I have absolutely no interest in trying either.

    Blackflag
    Free Member

    Using Sheldon Browns calculator, my 1 x 11 set up with a 30t front has a similar “easy gear’ to running a granny and 3rd largest cog on most common 3 x 11 set ups. Not exactly a big difference is it?

    kerley
    Free Member

    Fairly typical 2×10 setup has a lowest gear of 26×36 = .72

    Typical 32/42 1×11 is .76 – that’s pretty close. With a 30t (.714) or even 28t front ring, it’s lower than the above.

    This is all you need to read for those that don’t get it and changing it to gear inches makes it even easier to read (or does to me)

    2 ring 26 x 36 = 20.2
    1 ring 32 X 42 = 21.3

    1.1 gear inches are really not going to make a difference. My lowest gear is 55 gear inches (single speed) and I can’t get up a good number of hills….

    STATO
    Free Member

    Fairly typical 2×10 setup has a lowest gear of 26×36

    A modern xc double yes. But a lot of folk will be running older (or ‘gravity’ oriented) 22/32 or 22/36 chainsets. Which give a lot lower winching gear while keeping the top end.

    22×34 (standard 9sp lowest gear) = 0.65
    32×11 = 2.9
    36×11 = 3.27

    to match with 1×11
    28×42 = 0.67
    28×10 = 2.8

    So very close to a 9sp 22/32 double if you run a 28t front, loses out compared to a 22/36.

    convert
    Full Member

    From my experience, and a quick scan of the numerous articles Google brings up, lower cadence is often more efficient than higher cadence but higher cadence causes less muscle fatigue. Obviously to run less low gears then you need the leg strength to make up for the lower mechanical advantage but that’s something which most riders will develop when their lower gears are removed.

    You are assuming a fixed speed between the two setups. I suspect many folk who want a smaller gear than their 1X setup gives want it not so they can have a higher cadence but so they can continue at the same slow cadence but at a lower speed with a lesser power.

    paulrockliffe
    Free Member

    Nothing against 1 x, but I can’t see enough benefit to spend money on any of my bikes to change them over.

    What I don’t get is the narrow-wide chainrings as the bash guard is then lost. Even just hopping the bike over a typical horse step gate thing risks trashing the ring and chain, let alone proper riding?

    Also, the above post comparing ratios ignores that you can go as low as 22 on the front of a 2x or 3x setup. 1x can’t touch that without sacrificing the other end.

    Oh and there are loads of climbs, particularly in the Lakes, where you’ll get a lot further up if you can sit and spin rather than tiring yourself out pushing a gear that forces you to ride quicker. The motorway up Skiddaw for example.

    Rich_s
    Full Member

    I think it’s partly down to SRAM trying to genuinely offer something that has as few drawbacks for the largest number of people as possible

    Or it could just be that SRAM never could make a decent shifting front mech and chainset so just decided to get around the opposition by creating another bandwagon.

    The use of the word “genuinely” when it comes to a large multi-national manufacturing business quite honestly amuses me! Do you genuinely think they have the best interests of other people at their heart?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 128 total)

The topic ‘1 x 11 – not convinced’ is closed to new replies.