[Closed] 1x11 cassette weighs as much as the rest of my bike.

Any meaningful studies yet into accelerated wear on 1x over 2x, due to nasty chainlines

Oh, has no one mentioned the back-pedal issue yet?

Oddly, i had no backpedal issue using an xt cassette with 42t expander, but i do with a sunrace 11-42 cassette. Thats the same bike, crankset and (model of) chainring.

I had the back-pedal issue when everything was new but not had it once things wore in. I've replaced the cassette and chain a couple of times due to wear but not the derailleur or expander cog. I use an XT cassette with 40T expander.

I've run 1x on all my bikes except the road bike for probably 15 years so I'm obviously a convert. I think it's great that the industry has come around to this way of thinking and made it work. I have to say I'm not sure about the look of bikes with massive dinner plate cassettes and long cage mechs but these days my knees (and lungs) need it so I can't complain.

I'm pretty chuffed this thread came up as it's likely to save me a chunk of weight on my next build without costing a huge amount more.

Cheers

I'm on 2x11 just to be niche. 🙂
1x10 surprised me how well it resisted wear and chain snaps. I snap chains for fun it seems. 1x10 and 10 sp in general seemed better than even 3x9. 11sp is dog turd though. The chains stretch way too quickly and the cassettes wear accordingly. I will be changing back to 2x10 on the next drivetrain change on one bike and staying 10sp on everything else.

It certainly looks like the chain is bending lots with the 1x

I've read that drivetrain efficiency depends on chain line...

11 speed on an mtb is a shit idea anyway; wears worse than 10 speed, and what's 1 extra gear when you've got giant gaps in your cassette anyway?

As for the 1x setups; they're great, have used them for 16 years on mtbs. But I'd never put any bigger than a 32t cassette on. What better way to show the world that you're uselessly unfit than by running one of those 46t dinner plates? They look ridiculous! At least with a double/triple you've got a big ring which shows you might have an intent to go fast.

How're you ever going to get any fitter twiddling away up hill on the 46t cog?!

Better range doesn't always mean a lower gear I still miss my 44T chainring from a triple to push big speeds (which had worse chainline issues at the extremes) but now 1x or 2x for me depending on the mix of terrain. Anyway I saw a 10-50T 12 speed cassette on a Whyte T130 - plenty of range - but it was almost comically huge, even compared to 42T, with a big 'ol derailleur and long long chain.

big 'ol derailleur and long long chain

Except that again, it should only be back to about where a triple was-

40 links of chain to lose on the 10 to 50. My old 10s triple, if my late night maths is right, had to lose 43 links between the extremes, so unless you deliberately ran a short chain you'd need about the same size mech.

Regarding having the big ring for high speed, how often do you really pedal your mtb that fast? Given that a cadence of 90 rpm on 34-11 will get you to ~24mph, I would say a lot (not all, admittedly, there will be some people who like pedalling down long road descents) of people dont need those high gears. My crosser only has a top gear of 42x11 and I can take that over 30 (not for very long, admittedly).

@swanny, I have to admit I miss the big hoofer gear. Not that I need it, I'm pretty sure spinning a lower gear fast is actually better. But I liked the feeling of rrrrummmmpffff you only get when you're pushing a stupidly big gear.

But my dh bike had a 36/11 top gear so it's not like the same ratios are suddenly a problem on a trailbike.

molgrips - Member

I've read that drivetrain efficiency depends on chain line...

It'll influence it, but even a rusty unlubed chain crammed full of mud being deflected to the max and wrapped round a 10T ring, is still pretty damn efficient- you can spin a wheel or crank and think "hmm, I can feel drag" but then get on and pedal and it's lost amid the much bigger inputs. And the difference in drag from chainline is going to be a small percentage of that small percentage. This isn't Science but I'd bet money it's on a level with the difference between a freshly lubed chain and the same chain at the end of the ride.

Lube on a chain actually makes it [i]less[/i] efficient.

Being objective, 1x would be ok if you didn't have to ride to your trails.
As I do have to ride on the road, I don't wanna waste any time getting there or back so a 44/11 top gear is bloody useful.

And in mass centralisation terms having a massive cassette is terrible. With fatbikes having wide BBs maybe non-fat bikes could have that and we can have 5 chainring cranksets which would only necessitate a 5/6 speed cassette out back.

Subjectively, 1x is for brainwashed sheepoids

I didn't actually say which one was most efficient! (though, hands up, I totally thought it'd be the lubed one, told you it wasn't Science)

Regarding having the big ring for high speed,

Subjectively, 1x is for brainwashed sheepoids

Bollocks.

Subjectively, 1x is for brainwashed sheepoids

kayak23 - Member
[s]Bollocks.[/s] [b]Baa[/b]

Sorry couldn't resist that one 😛

Seriously though, even though I'm still on 2x myself I do appreciate there are some advantages to 1x too - it has certainly allowed some interesting bike designs to be developed.

Back to my previous question, does anybody know the actual weight differences between 1x and 2x for Shimano vs Shimano, etc?

Probably not the best person to contribute as I have run single speed for 15 years but how many gears do you need?

Coming at it from someone who would be new to gears an having 10 or 11 gears selected in a sequential manner from one lever sounds ideal for me.

Seriously though, even though I'm still on 2x myself

2x? Why not 3x? They're the real keepers of the sacred truth. Pfft..... Sheepoid.. 😉

But I liked the feeling of rrrrummmmpffff you only get when you're pushing a stupidly big gear.

Aye, i miss kicking it into the big ring to go and chase roadies bit i miss cleaning all the mud and grass that built up round the chainrings and mech a lot less!

I went 1*9 to be able to run a proper chain device, and have gone 1*10,11 &12 since as tech allows. Its all a bit heavier and more fragile as time has gone on, but gone are the days when I'd happily push a 34/34 up a welsh mountain too, so it's all good for me. Can't say I miss the big gears anymore, I just relax on those bits!

twisty - Member

Back to my previous question, does anybody know the actual weight differences between 1x and 2x for Shimano vs Shimano, etc?

The trouble is how you pick your comparison- frinstance upfront costs vs consumable costs (1x is cheap to build from scratch, less bits, but more expensive to run, expensive consumables), what range you want... Do you include a chain device to improve 2x's chain retention to get it closer to 1x, or for that matter do you add a top guide to make 1x's chain retention near perfect... Or are you happy with 2x's standard retention as it is. There's not really a simple parts equivalence and there's personal taste involved in what's important to you

The 350g I threw out earlier in the thread (not inc chain device as that's a variable) seems pretty fair- that's pretty much for the choice I'd be making personally, for basically XT 2x, vs XT-and-X01 1x, with a fairly similiar setup cost. But that's just one price point.

At the other end of things, say you already have a 10x all-XT setup so you just want to throw a single ring and an expander on it, Oneup say that's a 367g weight reduction over a triple. So say 290 over a double? But that's got a narrower range so isn't such a fair comparison.

What better way to show the world that you're uselessly unfit than by running one of those 46t dinner plates?

Surely that depends on what you are running up front?

Being objective, 1x would be ok if you didn't have to ride to your trails.
As I do have to ride on the road, I don't wanna waste any time getting there or back so a 44/11 top gear is bloody useful.

What do you average riding to the trails?

So basically:
With 1x11 one's bike will be lighter than 2x9.

[b]But[/b]
One's 1x11 rear wheel will be heavier than 2x9 rear wheel

[b]unless[/b]
one pays for an expensive consumable cassette/driver. It looks like a hope 10-44T with it's special freehub is about the same weight as an XT 11-28 plus a normal freehub.

[b]although[/b]
The 1x11 will have less range than a 2x9 setup

[b]but[/b]
this may or may not make any real life difference depending on one's riding type/style

[b]and[/b]
Having 2 shifters may make riding, slow and fiddly, or not, and 1x may make the bike generally more awesome and retain it'c chain with a narrow-wide chainring, or not. 1x may create crappy chainlines, or not.

I've probably missed lots of stuff.

twisty - Member

But
One's 1x11 rear wheel will be heavier than 2x9 rear wheel

unless
one pays for an expensive consumable cassette/driver. It looks like a hope 10-44T with it's special freehub is about the same weight as an XT 11-28 plus a normal freehub.

Though, most people don't use 11-28s. But, say 11-32 as a more typical choice, that's about 300g, plus about 20g typical difference in the driver. The cheapest sram 11 speed cassette is £75 and weighs 400g, the second cheapest is 315g but costs a lot more at £160. The cassettes seem to last better but still, you're trading money for weight, bigtime

(I just picked up a 260g x01 cassette for £120 and they're still available for £140 but that's an unfair comparison, that's the best price I've ever seen)

What I was trying to point out (poorly, as it turns out) with my comment about cage length was that longer 1x11 rear mechs are more prone to getting bashed, crashed and trashed as the lower jockey hangs lower and spends time slightly further out from the wheel centreline. As they are quite expensive to replace, that's a bit of a pain.. plus can ruin a ride. Again, as I tend to ride up large hills that have rocky, bouldery trails, I tend to lose a mech from time to time; not every year, but often enough for me to be aware of the risk constantly. If you're riding the more natural terrain, squeezing between big boulders will eventually cost you a mech, so I think of this problem when planning kit changes. 2x9 or 10 helps with this, as the lighter, cheaper and shorter mechs survive longer and are easier to replace. I'm not saying 1x is always wrong; it's just wrong for where I ride and I find the fascination that some folk have with it a bit short sighted.

richardthird - Member
Front mechs are the work of the devil...

This trend away from 3x towards 1x is encouraging.

Now let's see the same happen with the rear end and chain drop will become past tense. 🙂

Northwind - Member

(I just picked up a 260g x01 cassette for £120 and they're still available for £140 but that's an unfair comparison, that's the best price I've ever seen)

Got mine here too, £104 *high five*

lighter, cheaper and shorter mechs

That would make sense except that, as has been pointed out, they are not necessarily lighter, cheaper or shorter.

Lighter- 11s is probably heavier than 10s, yes. But that's largely regardless of number of chainrings

Cheaper- See 'lighter', subbing 'more expensive' for 'heavier'. Old kit is cheaper, yes.

Shorter- Cage length is a function of the amount of chain slack you need to deal with, with relates to the gear range available in your system, regardless of number of chainrings*, so that's not right either. Case in point, my 1x10 setup has a shorter rear mech than when it was when I ran a triple (because it has a smaller range).

For what it's worth, if 2x9,10,11 works for you, then keep using it. I never got on with doubles and stuck with triples. On reflection though, if I had really run through logically why I didn't like it, I might have seen that actually it suited me better. I suppose, by all means use it if it works for you but make sure you're actually sure the reasoning is sound before telling other people they are fascinated with it!

*unless you deliberately set up a 2x setup with a shorter chain than big to big would need

highlandman - Member

What I was trying to point out (poorly, as it turns out) with my comment about cage length was that longer 1x11 rear mechs are more prone to getting bashed, crashed and trashed as the lower jockey hangs lower and spends time slightly further out from the wheel centreline

As Swanny says, it's a false assumption- you use literally the same XT mech for both 1x and 2x, their standard/medium cage. For equivalent gear you're usually 1 tooth further out so that's certainly correct but it's not much of a difference

I wonder at what point hubgears will get light enough to become attractive to derailleur users.

Or will it be centrally mounted gearboxes (more logical)?

In fact, given that on a 1x in the lower half of the cassette, you are going to have the mech pulled further forwards for a given gear ratio compared to a 2x, you could argue that 1x is less likely to have a mech in the way when riding up large, rocky hills. I wouldn't care to argue it, because it's splitting hairs.

Or will it be centrally mounted gearboxes (more logical)?

Standardised fittings so you can change between brands and better shifting ergonomics (i.e. not gripshift) are as much a bugbear for me at the moment. I am genuinely looking forward to proper low fuss gearbox bikes though.

you use literally the same XT mech for both 1x and 2x, their standard/medium cage.

I use a nice short cage Ultegra rear mech on my only remaining 2x mtb.
it's strong, light AND cheap.
by running a 22t granny ring you just don't need a stupidly big largest sprocket to have a lower ratio than any 1x has.
again Strong, light AND cheap.
Smaller cassette and resulting shorter chain means far less chainslap. That front mech also doubles as a handy top chainguide so there's little need for a clutch or NW for chain retention.
again Strong, light AND cheap. #SoFKUKB

FWIW - I'm running SS 1x7 2x7 3x7 1x8 2x8 1x9 1x10 2x10 and 1x11 (different bikes obvz) and have zero issues with weight, wear, cost, chain retention or gearing with any of them.

#PickaDrivetrainAndBeAdickAboutIT

I wonder at what point hubgears will get light enough to become attractive to derailleur users.

Or will it be centrally mounted gearboxes (more logical)?

I switched from 3x9 to an Alfine 8 and loved it and didn't really notice the shift in weight until I had to pick it up, a lower climbing gear would have been nice though.
I've recently bought a bike which came with a 1x11 which I do kind of like, but find I have too many gears well too many in-between gears for me, the climb back into where I park my car was a hell of a lot easier!
If only they did an Alfine 8 with a wider range and one that takes a Maxle.... the ability to shift at standstill without rotating the wheel is great!

Cheers, Steve

noncycler - Member

eh? WTF are you plaffing on about?

If you use modern mtb kit, it's literally the same part. Short cage road kit might work for you but it doesn't work for all bikes or setups, the medium cage is the setup that reliably works and what comes on bikes so that's what I'm talking about. Of course there are special cases and exceptions, but there's no sense in focusing on those.

As for chain retention, I was more or less happy with 2x and no chain device on my xc bikes, it was adequate, but 1x has proved itself much better.

Call it whatever catchy modern "buy me now" term you like dude. I've been running a single ring upfront with gears at the back since 1992. funnily enough there was no "'1x' shimano mech" then either. 😉

Awww... don't call yourself a "special case" you're just a little slow and maybe a little overly keen to buy into everything bike marketing throws at you 😛

If you read my list of drivetrain set-ups you'd have realised I also do #modern now too. although I'll never exclusively use "latest latest"

Heh. Welcome back btw.

Was kinda Alfine curious (for the Inbred currently SS) so had a look. 1600g+ Crikey!

swanny853 - Member

Standardised fittings...

go on, say that again, you're hilarious!

Was kinda Alfine curious (for the Inbred currently SS) so had a look. 1600g+ Crikey!

The actual weight difference all in is normally about 400g-600g depending on exact setup and if you're swapping from 1x or 2/3x

1600g hub + sprocket/CJ + shorter chain
Vs
~300g hub + 300g(+?)cassette + 300g mech + longer chain (+ front shifting gubbins if you have it))

Sure it's a lump of weight but you don't really notice it except when lifting it over gates and stuff, when riding it's invisible after the first 7.6 minutes it takes to get used to it, it's similar to swapping from a nice light tyre for a dual ply which some people do for various different rides.

It does all add up though and I wouldn't use it on a race bike, but for general XC and trails I like my Alfine quite a lot for various reasons and the weight is tolerable.

Seriously considering a pinion bike in the near future though if I can save up enough!

If you use modern mtb kit, it's literally the same part.

richardthird - Member
Was kinda Alfine curious (for the Inbred currently SS) so had a look. 1600g+ Crikey!

Be nice if it was lighter, but it's not really a sporty lightweight hub, more at commuter level, ie robust and not weight weenie.

However when you consider its durability and faff freeness, the little bit extra weight isn't that bad. What's the weight of a cassette hub, cassette, and derailleur.? (I did do a weight comparison once but I've lost it, but the difference was not enough to put me off.)

You do get to save some weight with its shorter spokes and shorter chain though. 🙂

I have an Alfine on one of my bikes and I like not having to worry about scraping it off on a rock.

I'd be happy if I could have the same range with less gears in a lighter package, eg 5 spd which could be done with 2 trains of epicyclics instead of 3, thus removing some internal drag.

(I have a Sturmey-Archer 5 speed hub which weighs just over 1,000 gms, again with no concession to weight saving. That gives an idea of the weight that could be trimmed, just needs a wider range.)

I'd be happy if I could have the same range with less gears in a lighter package, eg 5 spd which could be done with 2 trains of epicyclics instead of 3, thus removing some internal drag.

Say 90% of people with an Alfine 😆

I only went from an A8 to A11 to get the extra range, I don't much care about the steps in between as the kind of riding I use that bike for it doesn't matter much how close they are.

If only someone would listen and build it!!!!!