[deebosong]

If I may inquire, as someone curious about 1x's, what do you like about them over 2x or 3x?

Did you put the 1x on a road bike, or something or other?

I'm not into racing, but I like going hard and fast (relative to my fitness), and find that I don't really care about cadence, but I do like range and minimalism. Makes me think a 1x, even on road, would be great for me, even if I'd keep my 2x's, since they work perfectly fine. Only if/ when the components wear out, maybe I'd do the 1x switcheroo.

[doubled112]

One less derailleur to adjust or have fail, so less maintenance.

No worries about chain angle in certain gear combinations.

Front chain ring can be cheaper/more durable/flippable because it doesn't need ramps/pins/grooves.

I did a 3x8 to 1x8 conversion on a hard tail mountain bike I was commuting on a while back (~8 years ago). There was some messing around with chain line, but over all a simpler setup when I was done.

I'd bet it is even simpler to get done now.

[femiagbabiaka]

Funny enough cross chaining on 1x tends to be worse if you want to get enough range out of the back (1x12/13). That combined with how thin chains are getting to accommodate the big cassettes makes me feel like the limit of 1x will be reached soon.

[doubled112]

That's probably true.

I stuck with 8 back then because it's good enough, and the more thin and precise things get, the more expensive yet less tolerant of road salt they seem to become.

2x13 seems like more ratios than I'd ever need, but who am I to say that applies to everybody?

[deebosong]

Dang. That's kinda of a big deal...

Kinda crazy that people are vouching for 1x if cross-chaining is an issue with that system (as the main pull seemed to be that 1x is fully functional as is, without hiccups).

So in your opinion, do you prefer 2x & 3x? And is the cross-chaining issue with 1x enough of an issue to write it off?

I'm guessing the cross-chaining can be addressed if you reduce the range in the cassette?

[femiagbabiaka]

Yeah! Smaller cassettes can help. The difference in efficiency is quite small from testing Lenard Zinn did. About 8w difference. So I’d say especially for mountain biking it makes a lot of sense. For the road where someone might care about marginal gains it makes no sense IMO but to each their own!

As far as 2x vs. 3x, it depends on purpose for me. My rando bike has a triple on it and my faster road bike has a subcompact double. I think if you care about weight savings you can get really good range out of a 2x system. 3x could be more useful for a “do anything” kind of bike.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> One less derailleur to adjust or have fail, so less maintenance.

Theoretically, this is true. Except that the derailleur that 1x design removes is the front derailleur, not well known as the locus of failure or maintainance.

[doubled112]

Two words: road salt.

Suddenly I realized that my front derailleur was merely a chain guide.

I was really unkind to my bicycles. Always trying to find a way to replace fewer parts. I've broken or worn out and replaced everything except the frame, seat post and handlebars on that bike.

[ubermonkey]

I live in a flat place, so I know a LOT of folks who set up their crit (racing) bikes as 1x. 1x on gravel and MTB has become almost the standard.

It happens because the cassettes have gotten SO WIDE -- 12 speed is pretty normal now -- that you don't so much need the extra chainring in front to get a pretty wonderful gear range, especially in contexts where having close ratios may not matter (e.g., mtb or gravel).

[petre]

We have hills here and I very much enjoy being able to drop my chain 10 or 16 teeth at a time with my 2x11 mountain and 2x10 all road setups.

I wouldn't go back to 3x9 though. Maybe on the vintage road bike where finding any crankset other than a road 52/42 is an adventure.

[ubermonkey]

Yeah, I really don't know how well 1x setups work for people in hillier places. I did a big charity ride through the Texas hill country about a month ago, and I didn't even take my normal road bike (53/39, 11-25). I took my "endurance" frame that's geared way easier (50/34, 11-28).

A 1x would've been miserable, and this was a weekend with only maybe 6,000 feet of climbing.

That said, are they even MAKING 2x mountain bike setups anymore?

[petre]

Yes, Shimano is quite conservative and they still make 2x setups. The MTB manufacturers rarely use them though, maybe as a cost cutting measure and also because everyone and their neighbour now wants 1x.

On the gravel bike side of things, 1x still doesn't cut it in the low gearing department and one needs to resort to mixing incompatible gravel and MTB mechanical parts. That's where electronic shifting comes to the rescue.

53/39 is insane. I only use subcompacts like 46/30 or 48/32. No use for the ≥ 50T here.

[ubermonkey]

Yeah, it's hella flat in Houston. ;) I sometimes get texts from pals who live elsewhere after I upload, say, a 60+ mile ride with, like, 300 feet of elevation.

I love the feel of the 53 vs the compact on my Roubaix, but i have to be really on top of my game to take it to (e.g.) Austin.