Drivetrain

Steve I believe 1x was originally designed to allow for a better geometry design for 29r bikes. The larger wheel in the rear was a problem for many designs . By getting rid of the front derailleur it made room for the wheel and made it possible to get pivots and geo much better. The new 1x systems are really good. I first thought that drivetrains would wear out much faster with the extreme chain angles but not so. Mine are fantastic and have been very durable. Much less clutter , a pound lighter bike and better geometry. There is a bit more shifting involved but you get used to it.
 
Y-not said:
I don't get the single chainring up front and 11-12 cogs in the rear.
Is it just a marketing gimic or is there a advantage/disadvantage from my old 3x chainring and 9 speed cog on Ol Blue ?
Click to expand...
I have always been a slow adopter of mtb "innovations." Some are stupid, some are meh and some are wonderful. I put the 1x drivetrain in between "meh" and "wonderful."

I dropped from a 3 ring to a 2 ring front with a bashguard and chainguide. That was before derailleurs had a clutch to limit chainslap (a "wonderful" innovation). I liked being able to dump from the bigger ring to the smaller ring. However, as @Tom the Bomb said, dropping the front derailleur opened up a lot of geometry and suspension design improvements for the frame designers. Therefore, unless you were keeping an old frame, the consumer had no choice but to go 1x.

My Tracer was 1x11. I didn't really feel a need for a bigger range than I had on that bike. Maybe the lowest gear (30 x 42 - or maybe it was 46) could have been lower for climbing super steep stuff, but I was strong enough to handle it then.

My ciurrent bikes are 1x12. The Shimano gear range makes waaaaaay more sense than the SRAM which jumps from 42 to 52 with nothing in between. The Shimano has 51, 45, 39 at the top - and that makes a lot more sense for me. I run a 32t front on my 27.5 and a 28t front on my 29er. I don't yearn for more range.

Between the 1 x 12, the clutch derailleurs and the modern frame damping systems, both of my bikes are stunningly silent - and that's a good thing.

PS: Plus-size (27.5+) tires were one of the "innovations" I would characterize as stupid.
 
DH bikes were the original 1x bikes, late 90s and early 2000s. Had 1x on my trail bike in that era and again from 2010 on.

I can't claim to be an early adopter of many things but 1x and dropper posts were two of those. No need for the ridiculous dinner plate cassette cogs either. Just get in shape!
 
I went with 1x11 Shimano several yrs ago after being determined not to go larger than a 42. Went with the 50 T due to more even spacing between the 2 largest gears. Also felt like it's not necessary to have a 12th gear.
 
herzalot said:
I have always been a slow adopter of mtb "innovations." Some are stupid, some are meh and some are wonderful. I put the 1x drivetrain in between "meh" and "wonderful."

I dropped from a 3 ring to a 2 ring front with a bashguard and chainguide. That was before derailleurs had a clutch to limit chainslap (a "wonderful" innovation). I liked being able to dump from the bigger ring to the smaller ring. However, as @Tom the Bomb said, dropping the front derailleur opened up a lot of geometry and suspension design improvements for the frame designers. Therefore, unless you were keeping an old frame, the consumer had no choice but to go 1x.

My Tracer was 1x11. I didn't really feel a need for a bigger range than I had on that bike. Maybe the lowest gear (30 x 42 - or maybe it was 46) could have been lower for climbing super steep stuff, but I was strong enough to handle it then.

My ciurrent bikes are 1x12. The Shimano gear range makes waaaaaay more sense than the SRAM which jumps from 42 to 52 with nothing in between. The Shimano has 51, 45, 39 at the top - and that makes a lot more sense for me. I run a 32t front on my 27.5 and a 28t front on my 29er. I don't yearn for more range.

Between the 1 x 12, the clutch derailleurs and the modern frame damping systems, both of my bikes are stunningly silent - and that's a good thing.

PS: Plus-size (27.5+) tires were one of the "innovations" I would characterize as stupid.
Click to expand...
I believe the later SRAM cassettes go 38, 44, 52 now.
 
I've been all over the map on this....

My mountain bike started as a 2x10. 38/26 x 11-34.
Then 1x10. 34 x 11-36.
Then 1x11. 34 x 11-42.
I think there was a short period where the front was at 32t.
Then 2x11 (current setup) 38/26 x 11/42.

My steel gravel bike began as a 1x11. 36 x 11-42
Now has 46/30 x 11-40.
My new gravel bike has the same 46/30 x 11-40.

I like the 2x setup because it gives me the widest range of options. And I have a heart valve issue to consider, so maybe I'm not representative of the greater population.

But the 2x11's "weight penalty" is more than offset by the gear range. In my not so humble estimation, and based on experience with various setups.

Your mileage will, of course, vary.
 
Last edited:
This is my big-o chainrings 48-38-26.
It was never a quick shifting setup.
1000006205.jpg
 
Runs with Scissors said:
I've been all over the map on this....

My mountain bike started as a 2x10. 38/26 x 11-34.
Then 1x10. 34 x 11-36.
Then 1x11. 34 x 11-42.
I think there was a short period where the front was at 32t.
Then 2x11 (current setup) 38/26 x 11/42.

My steel gravel bike began as a 1x11. 36 x 11-42
Now has 46/30 x 11-40.
My new gravel bike has the same 46/30 x 11-40.

I like the 2x setup because it gives me the widest range of options. And I have a heart valve issue to consider, so maybe I'm not representative of the greater population.

But the 2x11's "weight penalty" is more than offset by the gear range. In my not so humble estimation, and based on experience with various setups.

Your mileage will, of course, vary.
Click to expand...
I've read that the 500% + gear range of modern 1x12 more than covers the gear range of a typical 2 x 11 setup, but I'm too lazy to do the math. How does 38 x11 and 26 x 34 compare to 32 x 10 and 32 x 51 (or 52)?

I think 38 x11 is considerable more "stout" than 32 x 10 in gear-inches.
 
MTB with 29 x 2.3" tires, 172.5 mm crank length
26 x 42 is 17.9 gear inches (my granny gear)
32 x 51 is 18.2 gear inches (your granny gear)
38 x 11 is 100.0 gear inches
32 x 10 is 92.6 gear inches

Not a huge difference. My granny gear is slightly easier to climb with. My top gear is slightly stouter. The more interesting variation is the comparison on the in-between gears. I'm not going to go through them all. :gag:

See www.sheldonbrown.com/gear-calc.html and it'll do the math for you.

EDIT: The gear inches are a comparison of the distance the wheel travels on one complete revolution of the crank. It does not look at the comparative effort based on the diameter of the pulley (chainring), although that can be inferred. In physics, the smaller the fixed pulley the less effort required for the same amount of force. Smaller chainring will generally be better (require less force) than larger secondary pulley (cog).
 
Last edited:
Runs with Scissors said:
MTB with 29 x 2.3" tires, 172.5 mm crank length
26 x 42 is 17.9 gear inches (my granny gear)
32 x 51 is 18.2 gear inches (your granny gear)
38 x 11 is 100.0 gear inches
32 x 10 is 92.6 gear inches

Not a huge difference. My granny gear is slightly easier to climb with. My top gear is slight stouter. The more interesting variation is the comparison on the in between gears. I'm not going to go through them all. :gag:

See www.sheldonbrown.com/gear-calc.html and it'll do the math for you.
Click to expand...
When you're stuck in a 3-way tie for a 12-year-old KOM on a sprint segment, the 38x11 should have the crown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top