[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.