Why do people not want front derailleurs anymore?

don't understand too, I ride 1x10 for two year now (Zee) with only addition - 36T NW chainring, never dropped chain, not that bad for climbs too, no maintenance at front

Probably because most people don't really know which gear combinations to use for a comfortable ride, overlapping gears are confusing, and having two shifters makes your bike look cluttered. It's way more intuitive to just have 7 gears that don't overlap.

File: WP_20170207_12_30_39_Pro.jpg (2MB, 3264x1840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1840px

because cassettes are now fuck huge and you can retrofit expander cogs easily on 10 speeds.

>>1082376
For the same reason you didn't want a triple: you don't need it

>>1082376

Because millenials are too weak to get on the big ring anyway.

>>1082376
i only use the largest front wheel on paved roads. offroad you may use it on a descent to gain back speed faster after a break or turn but mostly you won't use it.
i use the middle gear almost always and only use the smallest on very steep climbs.

those single gear cranks look like the size of the smallest gear tho i can't imagine how you can pick up any speed with them.

>>1082390
36 and 11 are more than you need on an mtb, the newest srams even have a 10

>>1082391
36:10 is the same as 40:11 is it not?
so basically the front gear on these is between the large and the middle? it really looks small for some reason.

>>1082376
Mine was over 12 years old and completely seized up since I never used it anyway so I took it off when I rebuilt my old hardtail.

Because Sram can't make front derailleur that work anyways.

File: 1497338795039.png (2MB, 1200x1030px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1030px

I feel like I need at least two front chainrings. I only use the biggest third one on paved decends, but you don't really need that on an mtb.

>>1082387
Few races I battled one guy on a 1x10 and he always slightly faster on the downhills while I sludge along with 3x9. I blame the added weight or time spent gearing up. Since I've been on 1x11 everything's faster. 3x9 was really only good for training, but I have the road bike for that now.

I have 1x10 zee with a 32 chainring. The only time I felt like I needed another chainring was when I smashed my chainring to a rock that stopped the ride.

I don't know how much faster the 1x drivetrains wear but my experience is not too fast.

>>1082417
After three years I only needed to change the chain and replace the mechanical cables.

>>1082415
isn't 3x9 better with widely varying terrain and some added road here and there?

>>1082425
It's okay, but with a 38x11 you can spin anywhere just as fast. A 42 teeth isn't that much faster than 36x11 either.

File: Nexus-Hub-1-1024x685[1].jpg (90KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1024x685px

Because we have these now gramps

Because if you need a granny ring you may as well get an e-bike (not saying that's a bad thing, they're a lot of fun) and 40-44 up front is rarely of any use off road. It's 2017, we ain't riding about on 11-32 cassettes anymore.

>>1082427
i'm thinking about replacing my 3x front to a 2x, i think these 1x are a meme, but when i really started to think about ratios i realized i don't normally use the whole range and only rarely use the lowest gear. so maybe instead of 40,30,22 i could go 34,26 and that would be pretty much the road/offroad setting.

File: SRAM-XX-2x10-versus-XX1-1x10-gear-ratio-chart.jpg (54KB, 836x350px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 836x350px

>>1082439
so basically it's the same gear ratios as a 1x 30 teeth but it should be less quiet and maintenance intensive as a 1x system is what i have in mind.

>>1082443
*less noisy

>I'm in big ring, 3rd biggest cog
>there's a climb coming up
>with a patch of sand
>do I shift down or shift up 2 times while shifting down at the front

I hated those little dilemmas, of course every time I would drop into the granny it was too late so a few seconds later I would ride cross-chained again.
Now it's simple, if I'm pedaling too hard, shift down, if I'm pedaling too fast, shift up, if I can't shit anymore, walk or coast.

>>1082376
>Why do people not want front derailleurs anymore?

Tire clearance for big tires and short chainstays is a major reason

granny gear + big cogs on a typical 3x9 mtb would run into problems with a plus size tire

>>1082471

I meant to say chain clearance. As in: The fucking chain is rubbing your tire

The retrogrouches that were crying about 11 speed cassettes "7 speeds is enough!" are now crying about 1x, which is lol. I thought simple was better guys? ^_^

Why the isn't Rivendell all over 1x ? Grant Peterson is a CHARLATAN HIPSTER

>>1082439
>>1082443
am i missing something anons? i calculated the ratios and it looks like i would only lose 1-1 speeds at the extreme ends by going to a 2x with 34-26 instead of 40-30-22. it really starts to make less and less sense to have 3x i almost never use those gears, the 40:11 is too hard for me and i can't really stay on the bike if i go as slow as the 22:36 makes me. yeah sure maybe i suck but i think i can easily live without them.

>>1082381
This

>>1082428
Have they fixed the efficiency of those Nexus hubs?

Also belt drives aren't too efficient either.

>>1082439
>i think these 1x are a meme
Sram sells flexible chains for 1x for less wear afaik.

Don't think they're a meme anymore.

Though Shimano the biggest is still on the compact train.

>>1082486
>Sram sells flexible chains for 1x for less wear afaik.
yeah this all seems to aimed at replacing everything to sram to be honest.
but it's fine i guess it got me thinking hard about what gears i almost never use and which i'm willing to drop.

for example there is the 11 cog, which might make sense on a road bike but it's not exactly useful to me. i could keep it of course and not use it, but if i ditched it my entire gear selection could come one down and the more useful cogs would be at a better more efficient chain-line.

My ideal setup is 2x where regardless of the rear gear, you are not rubbing chain on the front derailleur.

Probably bad for the chain but I don't care.

So you go down to granny when there's a big hill and don't think about what gear combination you're in until it's time to go back to the big chainring

>>1082489
That's a dumb idea, the efficiency difference between a straight chainline and middle ring to the farthest cog is absolutely minuscule. If you don't use the 11t then slap a smaller chainring on, as a bonus you'll drop some weight and have greater ground clearance.

>>1082494
>the efficiency difference between a straight chainline and middle ring to the farthest cog is absolutely minuscule
that is not what i hear and read also if you backpedal it's only working out well in the optimal range.

>>1082500
>that is not what i hear and read
Well I'm telling you it's not. You decide who to believe but I would hope that common sense would tell you that it's going to make fuck all difference.

>also if you backpedal it's only working out well in the optimal range.
Are you referring to it automatically shifting when you backpedal? I've heard about that before but never had an issue with it in practice, I can get it to move sometimes if I do a couple rotations of the cranks but if you only backpedal slightly like you would when actually riding it's a non-issue.

>>1082385
I actually want a triple goddamit

File: gears.png (26KB, 1381x264px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1381x264px

>>1082502
what about the wear on the cogs?
basically i see two options, one is 40-26 with the 11 cog out so 13-36 at the back, the other is keeping the 10 speed casette of 11-36 but rolling with a 26-34.

both give me the same amount of gearing but there is a huge overlap in the 26-34 almost like it barely makes sense to have two gears, meanwhile there is way less overlap in the 26-40 and the smallest gear that experiences the most wear and most strain is simply removed.

File: Untitled.png (13KB, 550x298px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 550x298px

>>1082506
>what about the wear on the cogs?
Again, negligible.

> there is a huge overlap in the 26-34
> there is way less overlap in the 26-40
You're exaggerating. There is more overlap because you have an extra cog in the rear. The thing is it doesn't matter because you're not suppose to crosschain (not saying that because it's bad for the drivetrain but because you should be shifting the front before reaching the end of the cassette).

>>1082514
basically what i want is two modes for the bike:
onroad or descent
offroad or climb
>There is more overlap because you have an extra cog in the rear.
that can't be if you remove a cog you remove it from both side the overlap doesn't change.

>>1082516
It's currently 5 versus 7 gears of overlap, remove the smallest cog from the right graph and you then have 6 gears overlapping. A fairer comparison would be a 13-36 10 speed cassette (so it'd have something like a 26/34t in there).

Yes you will have more overlap if there's less jump between the chainrings but one extra gear isn't a big deal.

>>1082516
Also I forgot to say that having less overlap means you have to shift more gears in the back as you shift the front. Imagine if there was no overlap at all, when you shift the front chainring you have to go all the way to the other end of the cassette.

>>1082519
yeah the extra gear is not a big deal except my chainline is more ideal for the lower gear sadly.
if i put the chain on the 40 front the 13 back will have it roughly straight (and i actually mostly use the 40:15 tops). that means i should keep the chain relatively low on the casette. and then that one cog and it's spacer actually start to mean something.

>>1082520
well here is the thing, let's say i'm somewhere in the low middle mostly on the back cassette and change the front before i start a climb or after i crest. (i do mostly mountain biking and actually it's either long down or very long up sections on the trails here) if i get to a more difficult climb i will of course go up on the cassette but get back down when it's over.

the smooth transition in all the gear range does not really exist on my rides it's usually more pronounced like reaching the bottom of a descent and immediately have to climb.

i really see more benefit between the less overlap both in the dynamics of the rides and both because it validates the extra weight a hell of a lot more.

>>1082376
Because people are getting dumber and lazier instead of smarter and more active, and it's just too much trouble and effort for them to figure out how to shift gears on a bike properly. That and the average person is too fat and weak to make use of even a measly 48T chainring, let alone a 50, 52, 53, or 54T chainring.

>>1082534
i don't get this. i can't even use the 40:11 on a steep paved downslope effectively. even if i was a fatass in your opinion my weight would only help on a drop. but the top speed i reach with wind and road resistance does not allow for efficient use of the highest gear. i feel like i'm just wearing myself down and not go one bit faster. what the fuck would i do with a 50 i can't even imagine.

>>1082521
>except my chainline is more ideal for the lower gear sadly

This is why square taper rules for any bikes you want to set up weird

>>1082541

I rode on my 53t ring for a year commuting. One day I read an article about "spinners vs mashers" - switching to high cadence in a lower gear made me way faster.

That was a long time ago. Now my bikes have tiny baby crank arms and tiny chainrings. Feels good.. Reduces pain on long rides

>>1082474
Huh, that is curious.

>>1082534
Road, mtb, time trial? I imagine a 1x with a 53 or 54 would be great for TT, right? But I don't really get why mtb people would want a 50t chainring.

>>1082376
Because we don't need them for off-road riding given how wide a range we can achieve with 11/12 speed cassettes now.

File: dscf3627_blowup.jpg (48KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1024x576px

>>1082428
What's that sonny?

>>1082534
>too fat and weak to make use of even a measly 48T chainring, let alone a 50, 52, 53, or 54T chainring
This!
50:11 is too long in a straight for most people, I can´t realy use it in my prefered cadence unless it goes downhill or I go anerobic and drive like 50km/h.

BUT
These small 11 teeth sprockets wear aout extremely fast due to the polygon effect and a higher load per tooth, wich is why you shouldn´t use the as much.
So you can use for example 50:15 instead of 37:11 to reduce wear and increase efficiency if you have a front derailor and said chainrings.
If you only have a 12 speed cassete and a 37 chainring you´ll be forced to use the 11 tooth and wear it down quite a lot and loose some efficiency.

TL;DR Stay with your derailor if you know how to shift.

>>1082395

that's a pretty stupid meme the sram deraileurs are really nice

File: RTZ_Et6TRSP_42-n-il.jpg (64KB, 1024x570px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1024x570px

>>1082599
>you´ll be forced to use the 11 tooth and wear it down quite a lot and loose some efficiency.

9-50t is the future pleb. get into it

>>1082643
how much that thing weights?

>>1082661
9-50t

>>1082668
in grams?

File: gears2.png (41KB, 1794x347px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1794x347px

>>1082506
i have added one more to the possibilities, i like it because i only have to remove a gear from the front i don't like and remove a gear from the back i don't like, the problem is i don't see much weight saving in this option of adding a 42 cog to the back.

>>1082534
Anything bigger than 46 is useless for non-pros. Using large chainrings teaches people bad habits like mashing. The future is 46/30 super-compact cranksets.

>>1082671
where would you use the 0.65?
i struggle to stay on the bike at such low speeds and also usually just spin the wheel on some crap and can't even start.

i rest some get on a higher ratio and all is well after. i'm seriously at loss where and when should i use the 0.6 range.

in the mountain bike world FDs collect mud which fouls them up. In the winter when it is cold enough they freeze. Without have to worry about the FD's placement frame makers have more options. Mainly you just don't need them with wide range cassettes. Road bikers need close spacing but mtn bikes really don't. Close spacing just means you have to skip even more gears to get to the one you need.

>>1082669
9000000-50000000

>>1082676
>Close spacing just means you have to skip even more gears to get to the one you need.
yeah that much i noticed.

File: tips baseball cap1462733890784.gif (1MB, 445x243px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 445x243px

>>1082677
>Not only did he read the SI Brochure, he re-read it and fully understood it

>>1082675
Loaded touring in mountains?

>>1082681
and how the hell do you stay on the bike pedaling 120rpm and moving as fast as a snail while being off balance and fidgety from all the crap you hanged on the bike?

>>1082682
30/32 at 90 RPM is still 10+ kmh on 700x28c so staying upright should be no problem at all.

>>1082545
>cadence
when i hear this word i always think it must be the name of some porn star.

if ur on a raod bike without a 53t ring ur a small dick loser its that simple

>>1082683
he was talking about 46/30 tho that is why i asked. i have trouble finding use for my 36/22 it seems like an excessive faggotry or i'm really missing something.

>>1082686
30/32 as in the 30 small chainring of a 46/30 crankset and 32 large rear cog of an 11/32 cassette. That gives 10+ kmh at 90RPM which is enough to stay upright whilke climbing. In practice most casual riders would have trouble maintaining 90RPM so it would be barely 10 kmh but that's still enough to stay upright.

>>1082376
i've beenwithout an FD on my commuter for a while now. Stopped working on me so i took it off

now im running a 1x with a 53 tooth ring up front

>>1082689
we are not talking about the same thing i guess. you say 30/32 which is 0.937 and i'm talking about 22/36 which is 0.611 there is a world of difference between the two. i get the same ratio at the 22/24 which is something i use often for climbs.

bu i guess i misunderstood the super compact crankset i assumed he was talking about 1x11 with 46 big rear and 30 front. sorry about that.

>>1082685

b-but that's my granny ring

>>1082690
Dumb mashfag

i took the bike to clean off the dirt and gave the speeds a little try. definitely the 11 cog will have to go i just hate how i can feel the chain jumping when i use it. i'm less certain about getting rid of the lowest ratio, after i tried out pedaling while holding the bike back with the breaks it seems much more doable than what i experienced in the woods. might just come useful in very steep paved climbs.

>>1082726

The chain should not jump on the 11 or anything else. Your derailleur is improperly tuned. Spend some time with your barrel adjusters.

>>1082732
nah it's perfectly fine. it's not jumping it's more how the cog feels. on the 15 cog and up i can't feel anything on the 13 maybe on the 11 definitely. it feels like crap.

>>1082733
>For smooth operation of chain drives at moderate to high speeds, it is considered a good practice to use a driving sprocket with at least 17 teeth. Of course, higher number of teeth 19 or 21 gives better life expectancy to the chain with less noise during operation. It is preferable to use an odd number of teeth for the driving sprocket in combination with an even number of chain links for uniform wear and tear on the teeth and rollers.
found this pretty interesting, basically even the 15 cog is far from perfect.

>>1082736

that's good shit

>>1082671
>The future is 46/30 super-compact cranksets.

My gravel bike is 34 x 22 - no joke. Rear is 11-36, 9 speed

>>1082752

I use 165mm cranks so it's a little bit geared-up from that. I don't know the physics of it but longer crank arms = feels like a lower gear.

Tiny ass crank arms, spinning like crazy, in low gears = feels good on the knees, can go farther

Triathlon ppl have been moving to really short cranks for a while now

>>1082752
The problem with 34x22 is that it's necessarily an MTB crankset which means the q-factor is huge and the chainline is fucked on a bike with a road geometry. Also many road front derailleurs cages will have problems reaching those chainrings. Most super-compact cranksets use a 110/74 BCD so you can get something like a 39x24 minimum and still have a tiny q-factor and a decent chainline (though the road front derailleur would still be unhappy with such small chainrings. 44x28 or even 42x26 would be easier to handle for it).

>>1082753
crank arms don't change the gear ratios they change your lever for turning the axle. they change your torque.

>>1082779
>>1082753
Wrong. Surprisingly, crank arm length doesn't change anything, in terms of performance. This is coming from some dudes at Specialized who do all the research on this shit.

Crank arm length DOES matter, but only for fit, and also there's the pedal strike factor. Like, often people racing crits opt for shorter crank arms to make pedal strike slightly harder. But in terms of actual performance and numbers, a 165 isnt gonna be different from a 175.

This is all within reason, obviously, using a crank from a 12" kids bike on your road bike will fuck with things, but no there's no difference at all between crank arm lengths aside from fit.

>>1082783
>crank arm length doesn't change anything, in terms of performance
performance maybe not but it changes how easy it is to push down on the same gear wheel size and incline.

obviously more rounds easier or less harder will be the same work.

>>1082783
Laws of physic dictate that crank arm length does change gear ratios. But yeah that doesn't change performance as long as it fits you.

>>1082784
sorry not more rounds no larger rounds.

>>1082785
It increases torque so yes it can improve performance in low gears. The downsides are weight, the increased risk of pedal strikes, and it's hard to pedal as fast because your legs have a greater range of motion.

In terms of fit longer arms will put your saddle lower and thus also lower your centre of gravity.

It's all usually very minor though unless you're going from one extreme to the other (say 165mm to 180mm). It's probably best to stick to 170/175mm, either of which is available.

>>1082790
>It's all usually very minor though unless you're going from one extreme to the other (say 165mm to 180mm).

That's exactly what I did. I'm 6'5. The next set will be 170mm

The long cracks meme pushed by Zinn got me on 180mm cracks that hurt performance.

The rules might apply for more serious riders though. But for my long slow suffering rides short cranks have moved the pain from my legs to my lungs

>>1082761
>The problem with 34x22 is that it's necessarily an MTB crankset which means the q-factor is huge and the chainline is fucked on a bike with a road geometry.

It's a touring bike. 135mm, sugino xd600 or whatever triple. Chainline is great (square taper win), q factor is relatively narrow. BB is 118mm I believe

>>1082795

Oh I fucked up. Granny is 24t not 22t. Works on standard road triple. My bad

File: 88498-largest_160.png (173KB, 498x620px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 498x620px

>>1082790
>>1082783
>>1082779

Forgive my bad wording. I did say "LIKE gearing up" not actually changing gear ratios

Sheldon Brown takes crank length into account with his personal "Gain Ratios" system:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html

Here's the tri site where I got my crank-length de-Zinning:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Crank_Length_and_Gearing_4095.html

> Many folks are unaware that your bike’s crank length has a significant effect on its overall gearing.

> You may remember that ProTour cyclist and Armstrong arch-rival, Jan Ullrich, would ride a slightly longer crankarm length for mountain stages. The idea was simple: You get more mechanical advantage with a longer crankarm for a given gear. Another way to think about it is this: The gearing is lower with the longer arm, so it is easier to push. For a given set of chainrings and rear cogset, the bike’s top gear is higher. Likewise, the lowest gear in the cassette is slightly lower.

> To quote Brown,

> “What About Crank Length? All of these systems share a common inadequacy: none of them takes crank length into account! The fact is that a mountain bike with a 46/16 has the same gear as a road bike with a 53/19 only if they have the same length cranks. If the mountain bike has 175's and the road bike 170's, the gear on the mountain bike is really about 3% lower!

Because they get in the way of rear suspension systems and shifting is simpler with 1x for filthy casuals that can't grasp the concept of having two shifters

>>1082385
I have triples on both of my mountain bikes and I like them that way so go fuck yourself nigger. I might convert my enduro bike to 1x eventually, but not because I don't like running 3x on it, only because there's not much room for a fd and working on the fd is difficult as fuck with the suspension linkage in the way

>>1082825
Just because you like it doesn't mean it's needed. With modern large range cassettes a granny gear isn't necessary unless you're weak or the bike is really heavy and you don't need super high gears on MTBs where the speeds are generally lower.

>>1082643
>9 tooth
That won´t last long, even 11 tooth doesn´t last long.

>9 10 and 11 tooth worn out
>have to buy new expensive cassete

Meanwhile my 50 tooth front 15 rear instead of 37 front 11 rear will still run fine and be much cheaper to replace.
(gear ratio is just for example and pretty much the same)

>>1082861
you can usually replace the lower cogs on their own. no need to buy an entire cassette.

>>1082864
Still less efficient and much more wear while there is no real advantage of a single 12 speed over a 2x8 speed.

>>1082866
If we're talking about MTBs, better chain retention, more reliable, simpler and easier to use, lighter, leaves room on the bars for other controls, better ground clearance, larger tyre clearance, opens up the FD area for different frame designs/suspension components, allows a narrower Q factor/wider bottom bracket.

2x8 would have its advantages too such as being a lot cheaper, slightly more efficient, and potentially greater range, but to say that 1x drivetrains don't have their advantages is moronic.

>>1082867
These advantages are mainly MTB focused, on the road the 2x8 or even a 3x8 would be far supririor to the 1x12, especially when you need a huge spread like from 50:11 to 22:30
In daily driving there is no real point in the 1x12.

>>1082870
i think the 2x10 may actually be better for mountain biking as you have to go through a lot of gears on a 1x if you want to switch between climb and descent all the time ad you would spend a lot of time on the smallest sprocket on your way there.

>>1082870
I just assumed we were talking about MTB as you mentioned 12 speed and no one uses Microshift''s 12 speed (I suppose you could put Eagle on a flat bar commuter but no one's doing that either).

Road cycling has different requirements, closely spaced gearing and a large range are more valued. Not many people are advocating 1x for road cycling so it's not really worth arguing against. Those people that can get by with 1x are those that can get by with 1x9, not 1x11/12.

>>1082871
Trigger shifter can move through a cassette very quickly, up to 4 gears in one lever press with Shimano 10 speed and I think SRAM may be able to do 5 at once.

>>1082872
i remember back in the days you could go through the whole cassette with one push.

>>1082723
i've got 7 speeds in the back, pal. more than enough than i need to spin2win

worrying about durability of a $15 chain when you're on a $1.5k bike is very rivbike

>>1082871
That's the perspective Shimano takes when they push their 2x off-road gruppos. It's an advantage if your riding is more XC than MTB, otherwise it is overwhelmed by the superior chain retention of a 1x setup.

File: twinstick.jpg (75KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1280x720px

>>1082376
The same reason why semi tractors don't use twin sticks anymore. It's just easier and less to think about which matters in the mtb world. You just pick the appropriate chaining depending on how much climbing gear you need. Anybody who says they need a 36t+ chainring on their mtb is a fire road riding fred.

If I lived in Holland or Denmark (or similar) I wouldn't bother with a small ring either. It's usually one of the first parts to cause trouble in my experience (the derailleur).

>>1082793
>>1082790
>>1082785
>>1082784

IDK about bikes but it matters a lot for a unicycle. Shorter cranks let the cyclist go faster, but starting and stopping is more difficult. Longer cranks give more torque, which makes them better for trails, climbing and technical terrain.

I'm planning on buying a pair of cranks that have two holes drilled in them. The idea behind the two holes is that you can swap your pedals between the farther and nearer holes for different types of rides

>>1082376
sell meme groupsets and SRAMs engineers can't design a FD that doesn't chuck the chain if you look at it wrong

>>1082899
yeah i most definitely ride more xc than all mountain. in fact the paths we ride are mostly well trodden wide forest paths with long climbs and long mild descents so not even xc really most roadbikes could do it except for a few rocky and loose sections.

Pros:
Less brain power required
Reduces about 300g
Marginally less maintenance
Trendy

Cons:
Reduces gear spread
Reduces ability to be in optimal cadence
Expensive cogs
Higher wear from highly bent chainline at each end of the cassette

Its fucking stupid imo for most applications
It might be ok for a CX race bike that requires a narrow spread
Completely retarded for road bikes, adventure/touring bikes/gravel bikes
Might be ok for MTB

The added chain and cassette wear outstrips the "reduced maintenance" of a 2x so I don't see any legit advantages there. I'd much rather occasionally adjust a FD, replace an extra cable than have increased chain and cassette wear.

The reduction in proper cadence availability is huge for road biking and grave/adventure stuff.

Sram designed it because their Yaw FDs sucked so much ass that pro cycling teams stopped using Sram if possible because of how unreliable their stuff is. I hate my SRAM crap.

>>1083108
i don't think anyone recommends 1x for roadbikes unless he is trolling.

>>1083108
You don't need a new front chain ring or as you put it "cog" which is now what the part refers to (dumbfuck)

Since you don't believe first hand experience there is a quote from a guide since you're all poor and stupid

While not a necessity, rings such as these can reduce the likelihood of dropping a chain. When used in conjunction with a rear derailleur with a clutch mechanism, such as Shimano’s Shadow Plus or SRAM’s Type 2, you should be able to run your 1x drivetrain without a chain guide.

>>1083110
Crit. Other than that, no.

>>1083111
>you're all poor and stupid
Your projection is palpable.

>>1083134

>you're all poor and stupid
Did i ever fucking say that you poor fucking stupid projector?

>>1082872
>Trigger shifter can move through a cassette very quickly
have you tried grip shift? in theory you can go through up or down with a single turn.

>>1083167
I'e used old Gripshifts but not the modern stuff, would love to try and would probably prefer it but I use Shimano.

It's because bike manufacturers can't get the cool slammed rear-wheel trendy designs in with a double. Unless they're Surly of course.

You'll take my 2x over my dead body.

>>1082825

I'd like a triple on my MTB, I run out of top-end a bit too often. But only an OD double fits my bike. Worth it.

>>1082584
As good as single speed, no derailleur to break, no real downsides apart from maintenance. Isn't this ideal for mountain bikes?

>>1083196
I've used Alfine 11s extensively for on and off road riding. For off road riding the ability to shift without pedalling or even coasting is a huge advantage as is the instantaneous shifting (as soon as the shifter clicks it's in gear), as is the durability and chain retention. Maintenance usually isn't a big deal, just regular oil changes which are fairly easy with the Alfine 11 in particular.

The biggest downside is going to be the extra weight and it's perhaps a bigger issue on full suspension bikes compared to lighter road bikes as it can have a large impact on how well the suspension can function, also the weight is right at the back instead of being centred like a bottom bracket gearbox. Gearboxes also keep the weight sprung (and reduce the unprung weight at the hub) so they can actually improve suspension performance.

>>1083200
I was thinking more for like free ride hardtails they would be pretty ideal, or like 4x or slopestyle where you still wanted to pedal places. Yeah the unsprung weight is bad, but bikes in general have like half their weight in suspension linkage. Seems like a pretty cool idea anyway.

>>1083203
A hub with large enough range for normal mountain biking (so not downhill or DJ/slopestyle) would be heavy enough to probably double the unsprung weight in some cases, not insignificant at all.

For DH/DJ/slopestyle you could get away with a much lighter smaller range IGH that would approach the weight of a derailer setup (because having less speeds with derailers doesn't drop much weight, only that of the extra cogs), the problem currently is those tend to be much lower end so they're not going to be as durable or have some of the nice features (through axles and disc mounts for example, exceptions exist for the latter though).

>>1083108
>Doesn't mention the improved chain retention of a 1x system
It's clear you have no business commenting on this subject.

>>1083173
Yes, Surly's innovative rear-suspension designs are truly setting the pace for the industry! /s

>>1083196
If you want to use one on a suspension frame it increases the unsprung weight and requires a sprung tensioner anyway, so the improved durability is limited and it is significantly heavier.

>>1083271

>full sus

Tryhard faget detected.

>>1083146
>Since you don't believe first hand experience there is a quote from a guide since you're all poor and stupid
>you're all poor and stupid

That is a direct quote from a statement made by you while talking with your head up your ass. Remember: just because you can post on 4chan while sucking off all comers in the gas station men's room doesn't mean you should.

>>1083111
>>1083146

Really?

>>1083438
>>1083436
>taking sieg posts seriously
He's actually a clown

>>1082376
Because everyone realized climbing is the only important part. Once you realize this you want simpler and less weight.
The only people who aggressively pedal on downhill are spin class folk.
Im switching to 2 in the front with 10 or 11 in the back.
I never use my 3rd on my surly and barely use my big on the road bike. Small small gets me plenty fast with my cadence

>>1083579

If by clown you mean 'retard', sure.

>>1082469
>>1082469
Do you have to shit a lot?

File: 20170529_113208_cr.jpg (921KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

921KB, 1600x900px

>>1082376
The mtb pro's use 1x11 or 1x12 so they are a great influnce, maybe it is a dead end or maybe it is the future, personally i upgraded to Sram GX 1x11 and i like it.

I ditched my 3x9 for a 1x9 and I LOVE IT

File: N360%20blk%20w%20Controller[1].jpg (371KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 800x1200px

are CVTs decent yet?

the entire transmission on my bike is worn to shit and I don't want to deal with the maintenance of all those gears, cables, and deraillures

>>1083760
The Nuvinci is shit, stupidly heavy and tiny range. If you want less maintenance get an IGH.

>>1083771
You forgot to mention its 78% efficiency...

>>1082686
today i tried it out on some very fucking steep asphalt road and on some hardpack less steep and yeah it can stay.

i tried out a lot of stuff with the shifters tried to keep a good even rpm on the cranks.

turns out i got rapid shift which means i can go up 4 or 5 didn't actually count with one move. i use my bike for a month now and didn't even knew it. on a lower end shimano shifter damn.

File: TESCO_VGA.png (438KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1000x750px

>>1083760
As aforementioned they they a hilariously low efficiency.
A dutch brand had a model equipped with it and it sucked super shit,so naturally they strapped a battery to it for the next iteration to make it less shitty.

>>1083842
>they they
They have*

>>1082376
Because it's "new"! That's all you need to know and the "pros" use it.

I use a triple on my bike
The biggest chainring is for paved roads: level, downhill, and small inclines.
The medium chainring is for moderate-steep paved inclines.
The small chainring is for off-road (usually grassy or less than ideal surface) climbs up steep hills.
I try to avoid crossing the chain too much in all three gears. My old Pacific aluminum bike had a super granny rear cog and was a great climber. Never forget that mountain bikes (especially XC) are designed to climb. That is their greatest ability that sets them apart from other bikes.

Are there some advantages to a 1x setup? Absolutely. Even my 6 speed folding bike does pretty well in most circumstances. With twice as many gears it would probably be a decent off road bike. For your standard all-purpose XC hardtail mountain bike, the tried and true triple is great.

>>1083849
>For your standard all-purpose XC hardtail mountain bike, the tried and true triple is great.

Until you slice open your calf open with the big ring or get it hung up on a log and die... You don't need the top end speed of a 48t or whatever on a mountain bike.

There's like 2 people using 2x in the UCI XC world.

>>1083854
>Triple chainrings aren't just extra weight and complexity, they're DEADLY.

Would you let your child risk their life on a bike with three chainrings? Be a responsible parent and buy your child a mountain bike with a SRAM© Eagle™ groupset today! Enjoy peace of mind knowing that your kid won't perish in a hypothetical situation involving a log.

File: 1496803925966.png (13KB, 800x102px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 800x102px

>>1082376
>It just werks

>>1083862
Eh I've railed my calf with the big ring on a road bike cos I'm a fuckup. Had a mishap unclipping at the end of a long ride and gored myself. The scars are a good reminder to not be a fuckup and they're kinda aesthetic desu wa yo.

>>1083862
>hypothetical
Who do you think people run bashguards, hm? Ground clearance and banging your chainrings into stuff is par for the course outside your fireroads, pleb.

>>1083854
there are these little disks you can put on your rails so they don't cut your feet or get stuck you know. they are called crankset guard or what.
you don't even need giant things.if it's the same diameter as the biggest wheel with a chain on it will serve it's purpose.

>>1083956
or bashguard they are called that also.

>>1083175
Instigator or what? Surly <3's od cranks.

>>1083882
did you have shaved legs? Since the hair makes healing injuries like that troublesome.

>>1083304
>My (((boutique)))) brand is magic because they don't suffer from some meme which I don't understand!

>>1083849
>I use all my chainrings!
The question is if you use your 48*11 or whatever your biggest combo is. Pros don't use it enough to justify a triple, so we can safely assume that your average Joe will not derive any advantage from sacrificing ground clearance, chain retention and the weight advantage of a 1x to slightly extend their gear range.

>>1083998
Please let this stupid meme die.

>>1084127
This. I'm less bothered by people that have a double with a granny ring (if they're running a close ratio cassette or they're weaker) but idiots that run triples with 4Xt and rarely if ever use the highest gear (or when they do they're just mashing at a slow speed) bug me.

>>1084127
>The question is if you use your 48*11 or whatever your biggest combo is.
The question is also if anyone should. Once you have that speed up it's more efficient to pump the track than to spin the cranks like a lathe. This is what the pros have discovered. There have been world cup downhills won with broken chains. Look at Gwin.

Anyone who wants to transport themselves from the home to the forest by bike might benefit from a double for transport cadence control. Range for double/1X groupsets is comparable if not identical. If you're not locked in the small ring once in the woods then you're not actually mountainbiking and should just buy a cyclocross or hybrid instead.
>>1084130
Indeed.