… that 11 x 1 is better than 27 speed?

Yes.

Not really

Yes

Okay.

And why?

No.
2×10 was the pinnacle of technology.
IMHO.
Better range.
Seamless shifting.
Bullet-proof.

Better chain retention.

No cross over on the chain line.

Free left thumb for a dropper.

Front mechs were horrible.

It’s not better.

add to Listers list:
Better ground clearance
Single control for changing gears

It’s not compulsory so if you don’t like it don’t use it. Most of us 1x converts have spent many miles on 3x so know how that works

Far better IME. I have used 3 rings for a number of years with great success. But x1 is better because of its functional simplicity. It’s like riding a kids bike. It’s particularly useful when you avoid the cognitive distraction of making sure you’re on the right ring or considering which ring would be ideal when you’re tired and your mental capacity is diminished while all of what’s left of it should be aimed at steering, braking, taking that drop or clearing that gap. Other advantages are a bonus.

2×9 is the way forward

The real question is , is 1x 11 better than 1 x 9 as invariably the front mech gets full of crap and doesn’t work.

Fitting a 1 x chain is so much easier as you don’t need it looped around a chain ring. Cleaning your bike is easier and it looks better.

Went for a ride with Mrs WF the other day. She used my brothers bike with Eagle 1 x 12. She loved it. Said it was the first time she felt happy with gears. Push one lever to make it easier, the other to make it harder. Admitted that the 2 lever system always confused her. Personally I like 2 x 10 on most bikes and 1 x 10 or 1 x 11 on a more gravity orientated bike (trying not to say the “E” word). Cannot see much real life advantage on 1 x 12 over the others, just disadvantages. (thinner chains and more expensive bits)

Wait till you try 1×12…

It’s definitely a well and truly polished turd.

I am now ready for my gearbox, thank you.

Way better. Front mechs were and still are rubbish.
The trim on my CX front mech is so sensitive, the bend in the plastic guide under the BB renders it near useless. Without the trim the chain rubs.

I am convinced many folk cannot set up or use a front mech.

It’s too subjective.

For me it’s “better”.

For you and many others it might not be.

I say buy what you prefer mate.

Yes. Lighter, no need to front shift, parts last better but most importantly- chains stay on. THere’s a lot of changes I make that I’d happily go back but I never want to go back to the old days of chain drops, chain suck, chain jams, and chains generally doing anything apart from just staying on the cog.

1×11 good.
1×10 better.
Still waiting for the Microshift wide range 1×9 to get to the UK.

(caveat – been running 1x since my 2001 Trailstar on 1×7 11-34)

2×11 is slightly better than 2×9 IME because of the low end gearing. Tried 1×11, needed more range at the top end so switched to 2×11. With hindsight, should have just stayed with 2×9 and saved money. Ditched 3×9 15 years ago, 2×9 better for off-road stuff.

Was it ever really “27 gears” or just 27 possible combinations of chainrings and sprockets (many of which overlapped)?

Anyway define “better” OP…

So at 90 rpm. on 26″ x 2.4(old tech I know but you can figure out your own calcs! 😆 )

3(22,32,44)x11/32, gives you a range of 5mph to 28.7mph

1(36) x11/46, gives a range of 5.6mph to 24mph.

So essentially, with 1×11 you are missing, 1 easier gear and 2 or 3 faster gears.

Seems a decent compromise to me.

I think so, but not in all cases.

1×11 has less range, sure, but it has enough for my XC race bike duties. It’s also lighter AND cheaper (not many things are that), there’s less stuff to go wrong (mangled a front mech in the past in a freak accident involving a stick) less stuff to set up*, and it’s easier to clean because it catches less mud. Not only that but you only have to shift one side; this can be a negative if you want to move a lot of gears at once, but on the plus side all the gears are evenly spaced and you don’t have that thing like I do often on my road bike where the two gears I keep wanting to switch between are on different chainrings so I keep front shifting. It’s a PITA.

Then there’s the fact that not having a front shifter frees up the left hand side of the bars for a much better dropper lever (which is why I tried it out in the first place). And, I can’t really explain this but 1×11 runs much smoother than 3×9 ever did. This may be down to the NW chainring though.

On my adventure bike I would like to keep 2×11 because on *that* bike I need the rage.
Except I am now paranoid about chainsuck. 1×12 please.

* which I am actually very good at

Yes. Lighter, no need to front shift, parts last better but most importantly- chains stay on. THere’s a lot of changes I make that I’d happily go back but I never want to go back to the old days of chain drops, chain suck, chain jams, and chains generally doing anything apart from just staying on the cog.

See, I’ve never had that issue. Use a decent chain device and it will stay on all day, I never had one drop, suck or jam up the golfie the other day. In fact I can count in one hand how many times I remember it happening. Likewise the only front mech that ever seized was the one on my road bike.

I do get the argument against them, I just don’t buy some of the spurious arguments used. I’d sooner see rapid rise erased from history than my front mech.

define “better”

I think it’s just a different way of approaching the same problem. It just has different compromises

personally, i think that 1x systems were developed to answer the issues revealed by weak 29er wheels and suspension placement issues for long travel 29ers.  That it’s now pretty much spread to all bikes demonstrates the fact that it works well enough for most folk. I like the fact that it’s simpler, that it’s more or less the same range as 2x or 3x systems without the same weight and “complexity”. Chain retention is better, and the lack of a mud jam makes winter riding joyous by comparison.

I am convinced many folk cannot set up or use a front mech.

What makes you say things like this? STW is home to bike nerds and most of the posters on the site have been riding and home spannering for decades, if there’s one place on the ‘net where you’ll find an abundance of folk who can set up a front mech it’s here.

Yea, 1x must have removed a major ball ache for FS designers and plus / fat sizes.

What makes me say that – all the comments about misshifiting, dropping chains, chain jamming etc

Better? Don’t know. But I definitely prefer it. On my last few bikes I road in the middle rung all of the time anyway and changing to big or small rings when I got there was just another thing to think about that annoyed me. Now I’ve got more range without worrying about shifting front rings, and I still double shift up and down regularly so the spacing is a non issue to me.

Prefer a double on the road though.

My SRAM GX 1×11 is ugly, noisy, and the most fussy drivetrain I’ve ever had to work on, but it’s still fine for MTB and CX, and I’d go 1x again for both disciplines.

On the road bike though they will have to pry the front derailleur from my cold dead hands, I’m one of those sorts who wants range AND the perfect cadence, and 1x just doesn’t deliver that for me. Just adding more and bigger sprockets doesn’t cut it either, means uglier cassettes, uglier mechs and I’m convinced it makes for a less smooth drivetrain over-all.

Plus, wasn’t it the accepted wisdom that more weight on rear wheel was a bad thing from a suspension point of view? Surprised 50 tooth cassettes have been accepted so readily…

Of all the reasons to ditch a front mech (and I get it, there’s plenty of good ones) being the more unreliable mech of the two is definitely not one of them!

WAY better.
10-42 and an appropriate size ring gives me all the range I actually ‘need’. Occasionally I’d ‘like’ a lower bottom end, but you just have to dig a little deeper which is no bad thing. (1×10 was definitely limited imo). As with some others above, I ditched the big ring in a 3x setup donkeys years ago.

Front mechs were just ****. They worked fine to a point in good conditions, but were a nasty solution. The need to run a chain device also added more weight, cost, friction and mud retention. 1x with narrow/wide and a clutch mech just makes the whole chain retention issue go away.

I lost exactly 1/2 a kilo off the bike going from 2×9 XO to 1×11 XO1. That’s genuinely noticeable. Every individual new part was lighter and there’s less of them.

I’ve managed to get 5 years (all year, all weather) out of my current XO1 cassette – admittedly a lot of chains though (and it is now officially dead). Compared to a 9s setup where a granny ring would be knackered after 6-9 months and a new one wouldn’t work with the old chain, so it would be new everything, every time, I’ve spent way less on 1x. (I think the minimal chain wrap on a 22t ring coupled with the high torque was what did the damage)

I’d happily go 1x on road too, just for the simplicity, but it’s not quite there yet, although I do need to see how a 1×12 setup compares. I need more top end on a road bike, and gaps in the cassette are more obvious. Road kit doesn’t attract filth and wear out in the same way, either, so it would be a smaller improvement.

I prefer 1×11.

Only got the basic NX set up with N/W front ring.

Works perfectly and has been reliable for 3 years swapped between HT and FS bikes.

Not planning to go back to front derailleur.

I lost exactly 1/2 a kilo off the bike going from 2×9 XO to 1×11 XO1. That’s genuinely noticeable. Every individual new part was lighter and there’s less of them.

Which means that an updated 2×9 would have been lighter too, so the question is whether 1×11 is much lighter than a comparable 2×9. An 11 speed cassette will be heavier than a 9 speed made with the same technology. A 1x crankset will be lighter than a 2x. Losing the front derailler and shifter will save a bit. A rear derailler, probably very little in it. Same with chain. Personally, I can’t see that adding up to 500g if you built a 2×9 with the lightest available components to match the new 1×11.

Wot TJ says.

I’ve pointed out in the past that it’s quite astonishing the number of folk who seem to lack the coordination required to operate two shifters and/or can’t set up a front mech. Usually, I’ll be castigated for doing so, but at least there’s a few on this thread willing to step forward and be counted.

FWIW I reckon 2x is about right, at least until we have 1×14, that approximating to the spread a 2x system gives (though the cassette will look weird). 2x front mechs are surely so simple to set up that anyone can manage it?

One advantage no mentioned so far is that when a rear mech freezes up with ice, a front mech still offers a bit of gear range.

1x has given frame designers a bit more free reign though.

One advantage no mentioned so far is that when a rear mech freezes up with ice, a front mech still offers a bit of gear range.

I’m hoping that global warming renders this advantage redundant, as I’m shit at getting rid of chain rub on front mechs.

I occasionally miss having a 42t at my disposal, but that’s about it.

It’s at this point that those of us with hub gears or gearboxes interject smugly and then ride off (almost) silently.

A teensy bit more range in the Alfine 8 would be nice, but there’s nothing in Devon I can’t ride with it.

As far as derailleur gears go I’ve never felt the need to venture beyond 1×10. One just has to thrutch a bit harder on the hills.

It’s different but whether it’s “better” is down to personal preference.

Have a play with a gear calculator and you’ll see that 3×9 (and 2×10) systems have a few duplicate ratios and several that are so close as to be undistinguishable. Add in the front-rear options that lead to cross chaining and your 27 ratios will be much less.

I went from 3×9 on 26″ to 1×10 on 29″ and “lost” one ratio at the bottom end and two at the top. At the bottom end, by the time I run out of gears I’m on terrain that I’d be walking no matter what setup I might be on. Even with two fewer ratios at the top end I’m rarely spinning out*. I’ve got three MTBs, one is 1×11 and the other two 1×10, chainrings are 28T on the fat bike and 30T or 32T on the HT & FS. My main biking is long distance stuff and 1x is fine for that. Look at the “Rigs of the …” lists for the Tour Divide, Silk Road, etc. on bikepacking.com and you’ll see the vast majority are 1x.

Going 1x allows bike designers to accommodate wider tyres and keep chain clearance. Not sure 1x came in to deal with “weak” 29er wheels as it was in use long before they became popular.

On road you’ve a consistent surface (potholes notwithstanding) and climbs tend to spend longer at any particular gradient so you’ll spend longer periods in any particular gear. On a MTB trail it’s possible that you’ll have to change gear every few metres to maintain cadence within whatever range you prefer. As with those above a 2x system makes sense to me on road.

*By spinning out I mean for a sustained effort on the flat not on downhill

The real answer is, it depends.

I went straight from 3×10 or 9, to 1×11 with zero regrets.

I currently have 2×10 (twice), 1×10, 1×11, and a 1×1.

They each work brilliantly for their intended purposes. Choose the gearing that works for you and ignore everyone else.

I’d happily go 1x on road too, just for the simplicity, but it’s not quite there yet, although I do need to see how a 1×12 setup compares.

I’ve been mulling this for a little while, and as a bit of a test I’ve decided to build up a 1x winter road/tourer/commuter bike got half the bits already its going to be 42t a chainring with an 11-34t cassette.

Should be interesting…