[Closed] Single-ring 'Bullying'

The same way I like my CRT telly and don't want an LCD
That's just daft

It was an analogy, I am not a dinosaur 😉 Besides, I couldn't take the bloke in Curry's bullying me any longer so got a new one 😀

 

😆

3X is better than 2x for adventure bikes.

You need 3x because you want some gears riding downhill on tarmac to 20-25mph (the big ring, which also gives perfect chainline), a middle ring for normal XC, and a small ring for loaded uphill offroad.

If you go 2X, and you gear range it properly, you will have a big ring for downhill tarmac, a small ring for uphill offroad, leaving you with being inbetween the small and large rings for the majority of the XC riding, leaving you with imperfect chainline and constant front mech changes which is unpleasurable riding.

1X Eagle gives the same range but you get less perfect chainline when using either end of the cassette compared to 3X, and obviously its alot more costly at the minute. Anything less than Eagle, costs range, close ratios and chainline.

For adventure bikes there is no need for more than a 2.2 Race King. It is possible to engineer space for a triple 40/42 outer ring, a 'normal chainstay' and a 2.2 tyre like the Race king without undue long bottom brackets which starts to affect Q factor. For the same reason, 'gravel bikes that can't take a 2.2 Race King, are badly designed, as there is no reason not to take the chainstays out. There is no need for the 50/53 chainrings that roadies use, which confines them to narrow tyres, off road for normal people with normal non pro fitness. Things should change with the arrival for the supercompact chainset.

1X is a good thing, in that it allows small front chainrings, which then allows wide chainstays, which then allows plus tyre options, which suit some people. It also saves loss of momentum switching rings.

I do agree that many bike magazines show ignorance regarding chainline, speed and range for cyclists with remarks like "3x is only for beginner recreational cyclists now". Its shows their lack of qualified understanding of the subject.

3X is better than 2x for adventure bikes.

Mine is 3x because that's what I had. I would have settled for 2x if buying new. But I wanted wide range because as you said, I have lots of tarmac, and also might well be winching up some huge climb whilst knackered and laden.

I quite like having an overlap between middle and small whilst climbing. If it's undulating with a short up I can go to largest sprocket in the middle ring without breaking my stride too much, but if it's a long slog I'll go for little ring knowing that I can still get some of the middle ring gears without changing ring.

I know 1x removes all these issues but at the expensive of range - and quite possibly some efficieny.

I'd like to know if you can extend a chain's life by using better chainlines on a triple, or if a 9x chain is stronger, more reliable and/or longer lasting than an 11x one.

You accuse others of bullying you over dinosaur bikes but essentially call 1x11 users as fashion victims. funny

Take your seats for the weekly instalment of 1x hating, thread names getting more desperate

That is why I don't buy bike mags anymore....

Yep, agreed. The way that the industry per se has conducted itself over the 650B thing and various axle standards has meant that ultimately, I buy far fewer print magazines.

These days, I have a good idea as to what I want in a potential bike purchase, near the top of that list is future proofing, but equally I'm happy for a previous year model bargain for the sake of 6mm of dropout girth.

The way that the industry per se has conducted itself over the 650B thing and various axle standards has meant that ultimately, I buy far fewer print magazines

I have a good idea as to what I want in a potential bike purchase, near the top of that list is future proofing, but equally I'm happy for a previous year model bargain for the sake of 6mm of dropout girth.

Yep, agreed. The way that the industry per se has conducted itself over the 650B thing and various axle standards has meant that ultimately, I buy far fewer print magazines.

We now have 1X 11 or 12 speeds that are pretty much back to an 8 speed block with 3 or 4 more sprockets added on.

After two decades of magazines and manufacturers telling us we need more close ratio gears...9 then 10 then 11...suddenly we don't need those ratios after all!

I'm not knocking 8 speed gap ratios, I have them on a 3X8 titanium bike I built up back in 1990 and I still think actually it's absolutely fine.

milfordvet - Member

We now have 1X 11 or 12 speeds that are pretty much back to an 8 speed block with 3 or 4 more sprockets added on.

After two decades of magazines and manufacturers telling us we need more close ratio gears...9 then 10 then 11...suddenly we don't need those ratios after all!

Except that 9 speed was often just like an 8 speed block with a lower gear, and then so was 10. Every since whatsitcalled, 7 speed megarange was it? The crawler gear on the bottom...

This whole thing is just because people are incapable of setting up front mechs properly. All imho obviously, but the whole thing with computer games and stuff has eroded our mechanical empathy. It's a halfway house for those who still have enough nouse not to ride a singlespeed, but struggle with anything even slightly more complicated. Put it down to the pressures of modern life and move on snowflake...

That'll teach those bloody journalists.....doing their job,advertising bikes for the people who pay their wages.The bastards.

The industry sells bikes, pays magazines for advertising and journalists aren't really in a position to criticise. As I've said before, the ultimate power is with the consumer who may choose to forgo particular manufacturers if they keep on introducing unwanted standards.

You have an equally good idea of how to contradict yourself in the same sentence too

I also have a good idea of what I want in a bike [i]magazine reviews notwithstanding[/i]

I'm not going to lose sleep over buying last year's bike with a slightly less fashionable rear hub width. I don't see how that position contradicts with my original statement.

Hmmm, I run 2x9 and have a greater range than you'd get with 11-46 cassette.
My problem is that I'd like to not use SRAM (found their shifters, mechs and BBs to be made of cheese in the past) but SRAM do a 9 or 10 speed small sprocket, which makes a lot of sense (but also means it wouldn't allow easy swapping between bikes - maybe hope hubs would be the answer to this issue.)

Edit - the top end doesn't matter that much, but 30-11 would probably be a bit low, and I don't want to lose the 22-34 bottom ratio - in fact I'd like something a bit smaller for a 29er.

You suggested you want a bike that has the features that will become prevalent in the future (aka 148) and then said you'd happily buy a bike that does'nt have it, as long as it's cheap.

Take your seats for the weekly instalment of 1x hating, thread names getting more desperate

Yep, at least one a week...

[i]"It's all a fashion thing"[/i] - check
[i]"for people who ride at trail centres"[/i] - check
[i]"for people can't set up front mechs"[/i] - check
[i]"journalists are evil"[/i] - check
[i]"the industry is evil"[/i] - check
[i]"nowt wrong with my aging 90's sack of crap bike"[i] - check
[i]"steps are too big"[i] - check

Christ you multi-ring fans are becoming as predictable as DM readers...
The truth is nobody really cares that you insist of carrying extra redundant chainrings, it's your choice and shimano/SRAM/Campag are all still more than happy to sell you the necessary parts.

Are you really being "Bullied"?
I honestly don't think you are, your just getting old and confused by some (really quite minor) change...

Time for some people to grow up?

Are you really being "Bullied"?

Well your post certainly sounds rather unpleasant. And even in your assessment of 2x you were passive-aggressive, calling them redundant.

If you really didn't care you'd not have posted. Peace out.

My problem is that I'd like to not use SRAM (found their shifters, mechs and BBs to be made of cheese in the past)

I used to use X9 years back, then it went cheese like, but my 2 years on SRAM GX has proven that they are back to their best IMO.

I have XT M8000 on my other bike, and the shifting is not quite as nice as the GX is.

Now do the same plot with 1x11 32/11-42 vs 3x9 22-32-44/11-32

I run 32-11/42. It's perfect for me, uphill and downhill - I never run out of gears either way - if I did downhill, that would mean it's a fire road, which to me is like being on the road, not mtbing.

If I travelled to the Alps I'd probably fit a 11-46.

The anti-1x is quite weird - the industry/press didn't even start x1 - people did, about 10 years ago because it makes sooo much sense - I was late to the "fashion party" in 2009 but at the time, manufacturers didn't take notice. People then just laughed and said you'll run out of gears, high wear, you'll drop the chain, you're gay for having a 30t ring, you must have 27 gears etc etc.

I didn't take notice then so why do the old guard feel the need to take notice now ? The irony is strong on that one as no one I know who runs 1x gives a shyte if another rider runs 2 rings - it seems to be a tiny minority of weirdos who feel insecure enough to assume anyone cares or feels the need to tell them what they should be doing. The reality is they are the ones creating a problem that doesn't exist, a reverse snobbery thing, for sure.

Pure resistance to change. Change is not always good. But it's not always bad. It's the terminal lack of critical thinking that is absurd.

Binary thinking at its worst.

it's your choice and shimano/SRAM/Campag are all still more than happy to sell you the necessary parts.

For now. How long before front mechs start disappearing from the upper end of the ranges, and then trickle-down...

I was happy running 3 x 8 until I couldn't easily replace worn out bits..

And increasingly it seems that bike manufacturers are taking the choice away - if the frame won't take a front mech it doesn't matter whether or not Shimano make one, does it?

^^
Yeah, that's the point isn't it.

Riders should be allowed to make the choice what setup they run. I run 1x but not everyone wants to.

So even as a "convert" I wouldn't want to see the demise of the multi ring set up.

Why does everyone get so worked you over this? Lol 🙂

Well, not everyone but you know what I mean.

if the frame won't take a front mech it doesn't matter whether or not Shimano make one, does it?

The irony is strong on that one as no one I know who runs 1x gives a shyte if another rider runs 2 rings - it seems to be a tiny minority of weirdos

I do thank Shimano for giving me a choice though. I can have 1x 2x or 3x (which the SRAM fanbois will say is stupid, since they've dedicated themselves to 1x only).
I thank Shimano even more for the fact that the 1x11 XT *IS* also 2x11, so I have that option at any time if I wish. Just need mech, shifter, and ring.
I also thank Cotic for allowing me the option of 1x, 2x or 3x, with or without chain device, and better still, with a BSA screw in BB.

Shame I had less choice over 650b.

I have 1x11, 3x9, 2x9, 3x8 and 2x7 in my collection. Only 1 of those 5 does not have the complete gear range I would prefer. On the plus side, I won't be breaking any strava records on the first of those 5 bikes on the way to/from the trails, so will typically be fresh at the start of the first climb, and guaranteed an easy spin down on the way home 😉

My first response on this thread:

I'm with you on this, and that's despite three out of my four bikes having a single chainring, it really doesn't matter.

If the gearing [b]you have[/b] is fine for the riding [b]you do[/b] then all's well and good.

You suggested you want a bike that has the features that will become prevalent in the future (aka 148) and then said you'd happily buy a bike that does'nt have it, as long as it's cheap.

No. That's not what I said at all.

I did say that future proofing was near the top of my list, I don't believe that I explicitly stated that I wanted Boost 148. My point was exactly that I don't particularly care for following fashion, there's a compromise to be made between having next year's obsolete axle standard and the cost implications of opting for last year's model.

You're free to keep informing me as to your interpretation of a point that I've clearly made. Fill your boots and have fun.

With everyone quoting their setups along the way the absence of my configuration made me think: Am I the only one running 3 x 10?

Pretty sure there's some 3x11ers lurking somewhere?

3x10 is overkill I reckon. Except on a tandem maybe.

I don't wear boots so have no real need to fill them with anything.If I did you would be more than welcome to wee in them.

funkmasterp - Member
I'm on a boost 29+ with 1x11, so close to being the Antichrist, but fortunately it's a hardtail.

I've got a carbonanium 29er FS with boost fore & aft, boost 1x11 chainset I winz 😆

3x10 is overkill I reckon. Except on a tandem maybe.

I would have thought so too, but it all gets used (except the big-big and little-little combos obviously).

@andytherocketeer

Funny that because it is on this very forum that the 1x fanbois tell me that 32 x 11-42 is all I need. Thankyou for calling me a weirdo, and congratulations for (a) knowing what riding I do, and (b) the exact gear range that I need.

You conveniently only copied part of my quote...the word weirdo (probably not a very clever choice of word) was followed by:

...who feel insecure enough to assume anyone cares or feels the need to tell them what they should be doing.

You have proven my point : I have no idea what a "fanboi" is but no one tells you what you should ride, do they ?

No one actually cares what OTHER people choose.

As you say, you have a choice.

At the risk of not insulting people that choose a different gear setup to me, what about the magazines tendencies to dismiss anything other than 1x?

In the latest Singletrack mag, Wil says something like "unless you're one of the three people still left running a from mech".
Yet in a recent STW poll, 38% of those that took the time to click something are running a front mech.
So less than 100 people responded to the poll? I'd have put money on more than 100 people answering to be honest.

It's a shame that more and more manufacturers are ditching front mech compatibility. Less choice is (often) a bad thing.
I'd be interested in trying a wide range 1x setup, preferably the new cheaper 1x12. It's a big outlay to just try it to see if it works though and I've got Shimano brake and running gear right now so no piecemeal changes for me and probably extra costs with matchmaking kit.

I'd rather not have a front shifter, I'd like to try a NW oval ring and run a simple chain guide - all good reasons to go 1x. But I like the range I have currently on 2x10, which when I looked at last I can't quite match on 1x11. Plus it's not worn out yet!

The only people that are "wrong" in this whole debacle are those that insist their "side" is the only right one. For me, right now, 2x10 is "right". When my drivetrain wears out then I'll look into 1x again, at which point that may well be the "right" system for me.

Excuse lack of frothing, name calling and the like.

Si

It's like Groundhog Day.....

Can we start killing kittens again, like we did with all the wheelsize threads?

There's one that keeps spraying in my garden and need an excuse to despatch it....

Oh for goodness sake, people. Stop bickering.

Just leave it.

edlong - Member
Am I the only one running 3 x 10?

Nope, 3*10 on the tourer, 24/36/48 with a 36 cassette.
10 speed Dura Ace bar end shifters.

Nice cheap cassette, huge gear range, not a ridiculous amount of overlap between the three front rings.
Works very well.

MTB is 3*9 and will stay that way until I can't get the spares.
I HAVE tried 1* and the restricted range isn't for me.
It's steep round here with lots of road sections, so the range is useful for longer rides, even if the big ring doesn't get used for playing in the local woods.

This is such a ridiculous argument. Pick whichever suits your riding style, fitness level and where you ride.

2 x 10 / 3 x 9 still work perfectly well, so there's not really a need to upgrade unless they've worn out, or if you fancy a change. But to insist that they are inherently better than 1x is also daft. It's just whether the compromises of one system is greater than the benefits, and this is a personal choice.

The journalists that are doing the "bullying" are saying it tongue in cheek, for the most part. I don't read many other websites, but the comment that Wil made was clearly not meant to be taken seriously.

Personally I prefer 1x, although 1 of my bikes is still 2 x 10. I'm not bothered about the higher gears for pedalling down fireroads/ roads, and I find the lowest gear is generally enough with a 30t chainring and big cassette. If I rode in more extreme terrain more regularly then I'd probably prefer 2 x 10. One of the things I like the most about 1 x 11 is how easy it is to clean after a muddy ride, I always find front mechs are a bit of a mud trap in winter.

At the risk of not insulting people that choose a different gear setup to me, what about the magazines tendencies to dismiss anything other than 1x?

Ah well, Pinnacle's 29ers will get rubbish reviews next year then if that's true 😀

Best only send the 1x 650B bikes to the mags then.

I was running 1 * 9 with friction-shifting for a bit, (before going single-speed on that bike) in a challenge to modernity.

I've also not long overcome the lack of front-mech provision on my friends bike by using a very subtle clamp-on cable stop, so even when a manufacturer isn't keen, there was a way around it.

I like subversion.
😀

blimey. even my 2x7 is SIS. but I have been known to flip the catch and turn it into friction shifting (handy when the cable stretches / outer compresses, and you can shift to perfection and faff about adjusting the gears later after the ride rather than trail/road side)

I'm currently running my Stanton Slackline as a 69er with a 1 by 8 with a 27.2 non dropper with inner tubes AND rigid forks. I don't give a stuff, it looks shit but rides well, who cares?

my trail bike has a triple

and I dont give a monkey's

I'll think about changing it when it breaks - if - it's 9 years old now and going strong