Can't comment on the really wide ratio cassettes but for the 40/42 models the gaps are smaller than when on the big ring in a 2x setup and no-one complains about those. Again - http://gear-calculator.com/
Chainline - when new there is some noise at either end, I use BB spacers to alter the chainline to make the side I'm most likely to use quieter. Any noise is amplified by any grit/dirt in the drivetrain.
Shimano 12sp ratios are fine IMO.
What are the specific requirements you have of a cassette for bikepacking then?
I'm not the strongest rider. FTP 240 watts and I weigh 78kg so I need a very low gear for climbing. Was in the Alps bikepacking last year and found the mountain climbs fully loaded tough going with a 11/36 and 22 front, hence the change to a 40 rear.
Sorry?!!! You weigh 78kg with a 240W FTP? I'm 86kg with 266W FTP, so very similar W/kg, and have no problem with big climbs with 30F/40R.
Either "fully loaded" means taking a shitload of stuff you don't need or you need to apply rule #5 !!!!
I can set front mechs up good enough, I just prefer not to
I was careful not to say it was the same reasons for everyone 😉
A couple of observations (I have bikes with 2x, 1x and SS).
The new side-swing front mechs are amazing. Much lighter action. Lack of gubbins behind the seat tube better for mud clearance.
I like being able to drop the equivalent of 3 cogs, usually when I'm tired/fatiqued/lazy.
The larger cogs on Shimano cassettes are soft and I prefer to avoid them in order to extend cassette life. They are also a big step so I save them for "those times".
I do run 2x on my main bikepacker but I'd changed a chain before a trip last year and was getting chain suck. This only happened in the granny so I did the three days in the big ring. TBH it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be 😅
So I original started out on 3x9, then 2x10 which was swiped out to 1x10 before finally going to 1x11.
A couple of things I would say:
1) 1x set up is a lot easier to work out what gear you should be in (girlfriend finds it a lot easier to know what gear she should be in).
2) oval chainrings do help to smooth out you pedalling and I find makes your knees hurt less at the end of a ride. You can go up a chain ring size over a round ring as well and it’s not as noticeable.
3) if you run sram cranks run a direct mount chain ring helps to drop some more weight.
4) I have no plans of going 12 speed due to the extra weight especially as it’s sprung weight. If you do go 12 be prepared to spend top dollar on the cassette. The other thing is I would go up a ring size over what you would run on a 11 speed has it will help with cadence in the 50t (less spinning). Otherwise you are more likely to become weaker (try riding in a granny gear the whole ride and that will show what I mean).
5) you end up having to attack the climbs more to get up them rather than spin up (this is where playing with chain ring size to suit your fitness and riding terrain is needed).
Gravel bikes were invented for the type of riding that requires 2 front rings.
Whenever I suggest that as a reason, everyone goes on the defensive.
This is the curse of success as a big hitter.
You've finally made it.
I had 30/11-46 on my XC bike, now 11-42.
The jump between 37 and 46 at the bottom was a little irritating, but I only changed to 11-42 because I had it spare and I wanted the 11-46 for another bike. TBH I don't miss the larger sprocket really but I prefer the smaller gap at the top. The Salsa which is my ground covering bike now has 32/11-46.
The gap between 37 and 46 is a bit annoying, and 30/11 isn't that tall. However there's only one place on my local rides where I spin out, on a road downhill. And that lasts about 20 seconds so I just put up with it. I never use even 30/11 on road. If I were racing maybe I'd worry about it on a particular course if it had fast fire road on it. But they rarely do. The 1x on the Salsa is a little less than ideal on road stuff because of the low top gear and the gaps.
BUT despite these annoyances it's still better for me than 3x. Chainsuck, mud gathering, also more trouser clearance and lack of a dirty leg mark, lighter AND cheaper (which is pretty rare!) and because I was using m970 the m8000 works far better. And oddly is much smoother. And not having to front shift is nice. Also, dropper levers that replace the front shifter are much better than those that go alongside.
So do people find the gaps between gears too wide with the 10/51? I use my 29er for bikepacking as well so it needs to work for that.
This is the only question people need to be asking themselves. You buy the kit to suit your riding. There are sacrifices with gear gaps with 1x...but that wont bother you if you ride varied terrain where your cadence is all over the place anyway and you want to be jumping several gears at a time alot. For more steady riding then you may want a bit closer ratio then, unless its fairly flat, a 2x set up might be more appropriate, but even with 1x and cassettes with non-linear gear gaps you can optimise your 'cadence window' to suit most of your riding with chainring choice. But never a 3x. As soon as we moved to 10spd cassettes 3x became obscolete.
I would have thought for bike packing 1x would be better as you don't have a front mech getting in the way of frame bags and cable routing fouling with frame bag straps.
And as for chainline...well since when does chainlink actually matter at all? Don't understand the obsession with chainline. it really is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. You might be wasting half a watt in theory...as if you're going to notice.
I would have thought for bike packing 1x would be better as you don’t have a front mech getting in the way of frame bags and cable routing fouling with frame bag straps.
That's not been a problem for me.
Gravel bikes were invented for the type of riding that requires 2 front rings.
There's an element of truth in this. Some of my bikepacking routes will have long tarmac sections linking up off-road bits.
It has also to be remembered that some folk just prefer a slower pedalling cadence and find 30/11 just too spinny if trying to maintain a decent pace.
Don’t understand the obsession with chainline. it really is not an issue as far as I’m concerned.
Amen to that.
I've never wanted to have anything other than 1x since I switched. I can't think of any negatives!
At least some folk have been honest enough to admit they like 1x because they can’t set up a front mech. Whenever I suggest that as a reason, everyone goes on the defensive.
I don't think people get defensive, they're just surprised people find it hard to set up a relatively easy component.
You might be wasting half a watt in theory…as if you’re going to notice.
I don't have a link (ho ho) but I clearly remember reading an article where it measured the efficiency of a chain at different chainlines, and it went from something like 98% in a straight line to IIRC 92% off-line. That's 6% which if you are churning up a climb at 300W would be 18W which is quite a bit, and takes a good bit of focused training to gain.
Of course a varied chain line is inevitable unless you SS or use hub gears which come with their own inefficiencies, but I don't think it's insignificant.
Just did a quick search and here is the results of a modern test of 1x vs 2x on a road bike in the lab i.e. clean.
Looks like you lose about 3W in bottom gear and 8W in top. Link here.
I don’t have a link (ho ho) but I clearly remember reading an article where it measured the efficiency of a chain at different chainlines, and it went from something like 98% in a straight line to IIRC 92% off-line. That’s 6% which if you are churning up a climb at 300W would be 18W which is quite a bit, and takes a good bit of focused training to gain.
Of course a varied chain line is inevitable unless you SS or use hub gears which come with their own inefficiencies, but I don’t think it’s insignificant.
I'll pull a figure completely out of thin air, and stand by it.
95% of folk on here won't give a flying **** about any of that! 😂
61 posts in and can’t believe no one has pointed out that it just looks better too 😁
22/40 is absolutely ridiculous! I can’t see how you need that low a gear for anything! 🤷🏻♂️
My fat bike is 1x but it still has the 22t granny ring on the front (no mech). If I kick the chain down I get 22/42 which is really ridiculous. I’ve not needed it yet, not sure I can spin quick enough to stay upright 🤣
you know it isn't compulsory to go 1x?
Historically I've had various '1x' bikes going all the way back to a 1x7 setup for a while in the 90's.
The reasoning for me has always been simplicity (fewer components to fail), justified by having just about sufficient gearing for a bike's intended use.
Of course during that time there have been occasions where multiple rings were really necessary on a bike too so the choice of single/multi ring drive-train should really come down to the application.
These days of course we're perhaps approaching a minor tipping point, over the course of about ~30 years both the sprocket count and feasible tooth count for a commercially available cassette have just about doubled, broadening the viable applications of 1x. Cassette have a lot more range if you want it, Which means 1x is appropriate for more bikes/riders.
The current debate (for me at least) isn't really over 1x on a MTB, it's more about whether or not the range/steps are quite there yet to make it viable on a road bike, I think it can just about suit Gravel depending on how you define that (slightly more "relaxed" on/off road touring and local tow path trundling?) but for a racier and/or sportive type road bike I think 1x is still maybe a bit too marginal. The simplicity doesn't quite outweigh the Benefits of finer gearing increments in two (or even three) ranges.
Much as I like 1x gearing, which I’ve had on my MTBs for the best part of ten years, I think I’d rather have 2x on a touring bike.
Consecutive long days with heavy loads (when you’re trying to have a nice time seeing the world rather than trying to make your legs hurt) suggests a big gear range with easy twiddly low gears and relaxed big cruising gears is wise.
Indeed chief, it's more about the tool suiting the application.
