Northwind makes the point there better- 11 speed mechs heavier than 10 but that’s irrelevant of number of chainrings. If you have a smaller gear range (see above) the cage can be shorter and therefore lighter.

Wut?

wut? indeed, but I think you and swanny have covered it all so I won’t repeat.

One problem with these discussions is people argue to their own specifications, you used to run a certain drivechain on a certain type of terrain with your own specific fitness and your new 1x does/doesn’t work for you because X,Y,Z.

Next poster along ran an entirely different setup, terrain and fitness and their new 1x system does/doesn’t work for them because A,B,C

Categoric statements like “2x is shit” are, well, shit.

<edit>If I get a choice of drivechain on my next bike it’ll be shimano all round then later, if gx stays within ~£15 of XT I’ll take the cost hit for the lighter weight and greater range, kinda doubtful it will tho (as per previous post)

So my obvious attempt to troll worked.

I don’t really care what you run. But to call us that have adopted it as gullible is fanciful. It works and for a lot us it is a lot less hassle when riding. It is dearer but then the bikes they usually adorn aren’t cheap either so it’s relative.

FWIW I don’t even like 2x on my road bike, Di2 or something that would just allow me to go up and down with just one button. Not go in the other direction when swapping at the front.

poes law or edinburgh defence?

I like 1x systems, so much so that half of my bikes use them.

I like 1x systems, so much so that half of my bikes use them.

I have 1x 2x and 3x in use so can’t really be accused confirmation bias…

Looking at those mech weights, that’s 100g more than my old 9 spd xtr. I presume slx is even heavier.

Scamper – Member

Looking at those mech weights, that’s 100g more than my old 9 spd xtr

Clutches add a bit of extra gubbins- an 11 speed XTR is 222g so basically 40g for the extra feature.

I have 1x 2x and 3x in use so can’t really be accused confirmation bias…

Got me there Colin, I’ve no 3x systems, that’s my socialist credibility gone now!

1×11 Sram on all three bikes. Couple of q-rings on two of them.

Only criticism I would say, more noisy than other set-ups.

I don’t even think or reminisce about multiple front rings in any way shape or form.

Like everything new in MTB – “First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” 😉

Mountain biking is full of developments that seemed like a good idea at the time, hung around for a while, then went out of fashion again when folk realised they were just wrong. I’d include everything from the Girvin Flexstem to the 26″ wheel. Let’s see how long 1x hangs around for all but a niche.

Let’s see how long 1x hangs around for all but a niche.

Really?

Some people just need to feel different or special, eh? I guess they’ll hold onto 2x, but we’ve not seen many go back yet.

Let’s see how long 1x hangs around for all but a niche.

There are a lot of people who have run 1x systems for a long time – I remember winching myself around the Peaks on a 1×9 set up with a chain guide. The likes of Dirt were setting up their bikes like this ages ago too.

It works for me and it gives me space to run my Reverb lever under the bars. I have no intention of going back to a 2x set up.

Why can’t we all get along 😆

I still own a 3x bike (will be 1x come replacement) and have tried 1x and 2x.

I prefer 1x. It’s more expensive (subject to change), wears out faster and the range not as wide (apart from the latest and most expensive) those facts are undeniable.

When set up right I found it less hassle to fettle and troubleshoot, set and forget IME. Definitely does not drop chains as often (clutch mech gets some credit here) unless the NW ring is worn out. No more chain suck! Can slip a new chainring over the pedal without removing the crankset, not a biggie, probably possible with 2x, not the 3x smallest ring though. It’s easier to clean/look after and no front changing mechanicals to fiddle with.

Ghetto 1×10 without the mech conversion or 11sp mech is flaky and if badly set up to boot awful. I’ve seen a few badly set up home 1x conversions, wrong chain length, poor chainline, not enough b tension, not enough chain wrap and mix-n-match knackered parts, all on one bike in some cases!

joefm – Member
2x is shit. Whats the point? If you can’t get up a hill with a 42t rear cog you’re probably seriously fat or the hill is too steep.

Let me know how you get on, after fitting a 52T n/w chainring, or you are Chris Hoy and I claim my £5. It’s about ratios, not just the cassette sprocket size. 😉

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

Is the wear rate less if you fit a 64BCD n/w chainring, limiting you to a 28T, over 104BCD chainrings?

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

Too early to tell yet but I’ve got 2x on a Boost chainline and the 1x on a standard. It certainly looks like the chain is bending lots with the 1x, and this is backed up by the back-pedal issue.

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 2×11 just to be niche. 🙂
1×10 surprised me how well it resisted wear and chain snaps. I snap chains for fun it seems. 1×10 and 10 sp in general seemed better than even 3×9. 11sp is dog turd though. The chains stretch way too quickly and the cassettes wear accordingly. I will be changing back to 2×10 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 42×11 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 less 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,

I had the strava’s from a race I did, first year 2x 24/39 up front, 2nd year 32t up front 1x. The top speeds were about the same, I think pedalling I was topping out at about 45kph on the sweeping fast stuff in year one, maybe a couple of kph lower the previous year but nothing significant. Most of the time I can move the bike better on any kind of descent by line and not braking than I can pedalling a huge gear.

Subjectively, 1x is for brainwashed sheepoids

Bollocks.

Subjectively, 1x is for brainwashed sheepoids

kayak23 – Member
Bollocks. Baa

[/quote]

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 1×11 one’s bike will be lighter than 2×9.

But
One’s 1×11 rear wheel will be heavier than 2×9 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.

although
The 1×11 will have less range than a 2×9 setup

but
this may or may not make any real life difference depending on one’s riding type/style

and
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.