Running a larger cog than you need gives you more than a bail-out gear. You will spend more of your climbing time in the outboard cogs, so your chainline is better. You can back-pedal without the chain dropping down the cassette and you have less wear on the components.
– Woody Hole: EWS racer and Hope manufacturing coordinator

Source: http://www.pinkbike.com/news/more-madness-from-las-vegas-interbike-2016.html

So, according to the guys that make this stuff, we should be running a huge rear cog that we don’t use, in order to get the chainline correct in the cogs that we do !!!

FFS thats a cop out if ever i heard one.

I think i’ll await the reinvention of compact drive.

I’ll just carry on running more than one chainring

Or, you know, run two gears up front so you don’t need the big ones at the back so often and, when you do, the chain line is better.

I’ll just carry on running more than one chainring

I hear what your saying, but bar this obvious elephant in the room that they’ve sold us (like “reliable” droppers – that we’re all now too addicted to, to ditch) , its otherwise a nice idea.

Or, you know, run two gears up front so you don’t need the big ones at the back so often and, when you do, the chain line is better.

Yea, yea, see above.

What gets me is that Woody Hole is saying the chainlines shite – so just add a dinner plate sized cog that you won’t use to solve it!!!!!!! And he’s Hopes Manufacturing coordinator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Emperors new gears

What he says makes sense. When I decided to try 1×11, I chose a chainring size to give me the same bottom gear as my outgoing 3×9 and sacrificed 3 off the top.

I don’t use the largest sprocket too often so spend most of the time in the middle 3rd of the cassette. No issue with back pedal or accelerated wear.

If I wanted a taller top gear, I’d need a bigger chainring and a correspondingly larger cassette (or a second chain ring).

1 x 11 seems a faff and a fad but choice is good I suppose

well choice is the word. Whatever works for you. I’ve never looked back since ditching my front mech and additional chainrings. Chain wear is 4 or 5 times better, and on muddy rides the front mech doesn’t become a mud magnet and clog up and lose the front gearing altogether. 1x is mud proof. Not sure why you will want to pedal back in the low gears – they’re for climbing so you spend your time pedalling forward. On the down when you’re down he high end of the cassette you might want to pedal back one quarter or half a turn from time to time, but thats it. I have no problems at all. So nothing but upside and benefit for me in ditching the gubbins from the front. Whatever works for you, works for you.

This could all be solved with a new rear hub standard…..

How about a chain ring mounted to a set of splines but allowed to move axially along those splines. A floating chain ring. It would then allow the chain line to self correct.

Chain wear is 4 or 5 times better

That’s amazing, there’s no end to the merits of 1x.

1×11 here no complaints, is this the I still run a triple and get upset by other people brigade?

How about a chain ring mounted to a set of splines but allowed to move axially along those splines. A floating chain ring. It would then allow the chain line to self correct.

Been done about 100 years ago 😀

I forget the brand – it was an early British derailleur system, and we didn’t trust this amateurish French gearing system with it’s crude derailing chains and squint chain lines, so whoever it was made a floating chainring which always had a straight chainline.

Ben, that’s great. Patent will have expired by now. Anybody care to crack on with the idea?

You could just fit very long chainring bolts…

Good idea, but wouldn’t the splines get thick of mud then wear and end up really sloppy?

They’d eventually wear, just like the chainring.

Seems the patent already belongs to paha designs though.