log in
register

Shimano, why no 1x!?

  • Creator
    Topic
  • June 11, 2018 at 9:41 pm #28612
    Canyon48

    Why is Shimano taking so long to roll out 1x for CX/gravel/road?

    There’s clear demand for it, the number of people running DIY 1x setups. I’d certainly adopt 1x on my TT bike and a CX bike (when I get one!).

    There’s the usual rubbish about the gear range being too small, the gear jumps too big and the chain line not being optimal – but these really have no effect when you consider how they are used.

    My TT bike, for example, I only ever use the 52t big ring with an 11-28 (ok, I used the little rin when I was rolling round a car park waiting for my mates to arrive), a wide range of gearing isn’t needed, so losing the lower gears doesn’t matter. Conversely, for a CX bike (when I had one), I was rarely topping 30mph (and when I did it was usually downhill on a road getting to or from some CX terrain) – so any gearing allowing you to go above 35mph can be dropped – the resulting gear jumps can be kept more or less the same as a 2x setup.

    And don’t for a minute think I’m suggesting doing away with 2x setups completely – definitely not! I have 52/36 11-28 on my Canyon and I use every gear pretty much every ride, means I can comfortably cycle between speeds of 6mph to 45mph without grinding or spinning too much. Similarly, the 50/34 11-32 on my Whyte is great for endurance riding and commuting, where speeds tend to be a little lower (gives me a range of 5 mph to 43 mph).

    Am I alone in wishing Shimano would bring 1x to CX/road? For now, the Wolftooth conversion will suffice my planned CX build (and maybe my TT bike!).

     

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Replies
  • June 16, 2018 at 5:04 pm #921473
    0
    fukawitribe

    Daveyraveygravey wrote:

    Daveyraveygravey wrote:
    This is the emperor’s new clothes, marketing people are dreaming this stuff up to try and get more sales.

    Nah, plenty people are and have actually been asking for it from what we’ve heard. It’s not for you – fine, you don’t have to buy it – and it certainly doesn’t suit all circumstances (no-one is pretending it is) but they’re hardly compelling reasons to think it’s all hype. The real world says your opinion isn’t shared by a significant number of people, do you have anything to back it up ? This perpetual whining about every new choice  in cycling, often as though those who appreciate it somehow need ‘saving’ from their stupidity, is getting extremely tedious.

    June 16, 2018 at 1:36 pm #921471
    0
    CXR94Di2
    exilegareth wrote:
    CXR94Di2 wrote:
     I tend to favour a lower RPM when I’m really going for it uphill (strange really, my PR’s have been at lower cadences).

     

    That will be because you’ve hit your threshold HR before peak power due to higher cadences elevate HR.

    I had a little experiement on Zwift riding up Volcano climb trying to set a new PB, my first attempt I had a cadence of 98rpm and averaged about 360W, my HR at threshold.  I did the climb a few days later and averaged 396W at 86rpm at threshold HR.  My second attempt felt slightly easier as my HR didnt hit threshold as quickly

    Isn’t this an example of the argument that trying to set too high a cadence is less efficient because of the energy you’re using mrerely turning your legs over?

     

    I guess so.  Its that balance between wasting energy by spinning too high and saving leg strength for later.  I tend to sacrifice outright speed on long rides to save legs by spinning.  If zwift racing then drop cadence to give power 

    June 16, 2018 at 1:18 pm #921469
    0
    exilegareth
    CXR94Di2 wrote:
     I tend to favour a lower RPM when I’m really going for it uphill (strange really, my PR’s have been at lower cadences).

     

    That will be because you’ve hit your threshold HR before peak power due to higher cadences elevate HR.

    I had a little experiement on Zwift riding up Volcano climb trying to set a new PB, my first attempt I had a cadence of 98rpm and averaged about 360W, my HR at threshold.  I did the climb a few days later and averaged 396W at 86rpm at threshold HR.  My second attempt felt slightly easier as my HR didnt hit threshold as quickly

    Isn’t this an example of the argument that trying to set too high a cadence is less efficient because of the energy you’re using mrerely turning your legs over?

    June 16, 2018 at 9:13 am #921467
    0
    CXR94Di2

     I tend to favour a lower RPM

     I tend to favour a lower RPM when I’m really going for it uphill (strange really, my PR’s have been at lower cadences).

     

    That will be because you’ve hit your threshold HR before peak power due to higher cadences elevate HR.

    I had a little experiement on Zwift riding up Volcano climb trying to set a new PB, my first attempt I had a cadence of 98rpm and averaged about 360W, my HR at threshold.  I did the climb a few days later and averaged 396W at 86rpm at threshold HR.  My second attempt felt slightly easier as my HR didnt hit threshold as quickly

    June 16, 2018 at 8:39 am #921465
    0
    Canyon48
    exilegareth wrote:
    Canyon48 wrote:
    CXR94Di2 wrote:
    You can do it with a m8000 single sprocket crank and this https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/96-bcd-4-arm/?teeth=46

    46t will be plenty to get max speed of 35mph, I know my 44t tops out at 32mph at about 105rpm

    Ooooh, didn’t think about that, cheers! I think I’ll stick with he wolftooth conversion (when I get round to it), looks better IMO.

    I created a gear/speed/cadence calculator based on my riding style and speeds using StravistiX, really useful as it shows the distribution of speeds and cadence.

    On my road bike I have an RPM range (normally distributed) between about 60 and 120 RPM, on my TT bike the distribution is much much closer, between 80 and 100. For the CX riding I have done the RPM distribution is similar to road – but the speed distribution is smaller, and the max speed only 30-35mph.

    Based on that, a 40t up front with 11-34 covers all the speeds and RPM I ride at for CX.

    I’m no expert, but I think you might want to go away and think again about those RPM / cadence stats, and especially think about whether the range at which you are most efficient is narrower than 60-120.

    Let me give you an example – I rode our club 10 on weds night. Halfway round the right hand brifter (SRAM Rival, from the ‘made from chocolate’ generation) self destructed leaving me stuck in 53/11. I got round, and my top speed was not far off the first lap, but accelerating was hell, and instead of my usual 95 rpm I found myself grinding away at about half that in places. As a result my left knee (arthritic, not much cartilage left) is the size of a watermelon, but the key thing is that it was less efficient.

     

    I get that many people are fitter tha me, and can use a range of techniques (like standing up and so on) to cope with wider gaps between gears, but those may not be the most efficient techniques, and may not be good for your body in the long run.

    I know its horses for courses but this broken down old nag thinks you may be thinking yourself into a cul de sac by not qustioning the data enough.

    One step ahead, I’ve already considered that. My usual cadence is around 90 ± 10 RPM, so anything in that range is practical. I tend to favour a lower RPM when I’m really going for it uphill (strange really, my PR’s have been at lower cadences).

    I’ve also considered the actual gear ratios, 40t/34 gives me a slightly lower gear than 34t/28, anything lower than that on a CX bike and I’ll be shouldering the bike!

    June 16, 2018 at 8:29 am #921463
    0
    Mungecrundle

    Given that where I live in N
    Given that where I live in N Herts there really are no hills of any severity, I have a 53 12-25 setup as this gives me a choice of 3 gears in my happy cadence range somewhere in the middle of the cassette for 90% of my riding. I could quite happily go 1x if that really was all I wanted the bike to do.

    1x 2x 3x, whatever option of chainring sizes and cassette ratios works for you, it’s all good.

    June 16, 2018 at 8:08 am #921461
    0
    Daveyraveygravey
    Mungecrundle wrote:
    [ I suggest that if you are averse to new ideas, development and change,

    I’m not, but this isn’t new or a development.  It’s a backward step, if you read my original post you would see why I think that.  This is the emperor’s new clothes, marketing people are dreaming this stuff up to try and get more sales.   

     The guy running the team with the 3T bikes doesn’t seem to think they are progress…and they have the resources and knowledge to adapt their bikes for whatever terrain they are on that day.  Although I suspect a double would give them a lot more scope to deal with varied terrain…

    June 16, 2018 at 7:59 am #921459
    0
    exilegareth
    Canyon48 wrote:
    CXR94Di2 wrote:
    You can do it with a m8000 single sprocket crank and this https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/96-bcd-4-arm/?teeth=46

    46t will be plenty to get max speed of 35mph, I know my 44t tops out at 32mph at about 105rpm

    Ooooh, didn’t think about that, cheers! I think I’ll stick with he wolftooth conversion (when I get round to it), looks better IMO.

    I created a gear/speed/cadence calculator based on my riding style and speeds using StravistiX, really useful as it shows the distribution of speeds and cadence.

    On my road bike I have an RPM range (normally distributed) between about 60 and 120 RPM, on my TT bike the distribution is much much closer, between 80 and 100. For the CX riding I have done the RPM distribution is similar to road – but the speed distribution is smaller, and the max speed only 30-35mph.

    Based on that, a 40t up front with 11-34 covers all the speeds and RPM I ride at for CX.

    I’m no expert, but I think you might want to go away and think again about those RPM / cadence stats, and especially think about whether the range at which you are most efficient is narrower than 60-120.

    Let me give you an example – I rode our club 10 on weds night. Halfway round the right hand brifter (SRAM Rival, from the ‘made from chocolate’ generation) self destructed leaving me stuck in 53/11. I got round, and my top speed was not far off the first lap, but accelerating was hell, and instead of my usual 95 rpm I found myself grinding away at about half that in places. As a result my left knee (arthritic, not much cartilage left) is the size of a watermelon, but the key thing is that it was less efficient.

     

    I get that many people are fitter tha me, and can use a range of techniques (like standing up and so on) to cope with wider gaps between gears, but those may not be the most efficient techniques, and may not be good for your body in the long run.

    I know its horses for courses but this broken down old nag thinks you may be thinking yourself into a cul de sac by not qustioning the data enough.

    June 16, 2018 at 7:55 am #921457
    0
    CXR94Di2
    PRSboy wrote:
    It would be interesting if Di2 etc could provide data on what gears riders tend to use.

    In my case, where my local terrain is rolling, I reckon I use maybe five gears, of which one predominantly.  1x would be ideal for me.

     

    Depends on what discipline you want from one bike.  My main bike is a Tripster V2, I geared it to mainly climb mountains, but mindful I also wanted to do sportives, clubs runs.  Instead of using a 50/34, I went initially with 40/28-(altered to 44/28), I swap between 11-32 cass wheels and 11-40 for climbing mountains.  The increase in chainring was I found there was just a little top end speed missing.  I can now pedal at around 100-105rpm at 32mph on slight declines, which is plenty fast enough and if it gets steeper gravity will make me faster.  The 28t chainring allows me to spin for hours if need be on mountain climbs.  

    There are some occasions when I would like to have a 53t chainring for blasting along flat roads in a pack but they are few.

     

    Btw, I do use all the range of gears, mainly on the 44t ring, but if inclines go above 10% the 28t is used alot.

     

    June 15, 2018 at 7:38 pm #921455
    0
    Canyon48

    Daveyraveygravey wrote:

    Daveyraveygravey wrote:

    David Arthur @davearthur wrote:

    If you can’t manage a front and rear shifter should you be riding on the road?!

    Yeah, more of this elitist nonsense. Nice one

    I’ve spotted a gap in the market, going to start selling bikes with only one pedal.  You know, less maintenance, less weight, easier to operate…kiss

    That’s not really the same though at all is it.

    And once again, I’m not saying 2x doesn’t have it’s place.

    June 15, 2018 at 7:31 pm #921453
    0
    Canyon48

    jterrier wrote:

    jterrier wrote:
    Someone really lit a fire here. Obviously, its all a marketing bs conspiracy, and I dont like it so none of you are allowed to either, and while we are at it, disc brakes are evil and so are tubeless tires. Now where’s my tinfoil hat.

    ..as for the ‘if you cant handle a front mech you shouldnt be on the road’ crap, my little girl cant use a bike with 2 mechs. She is 7, but anyway, i had better stop her from riding a bike forthwith to avoid upsetting the trolls.

    Yeah too right!

    Blimey, all I asked is why Shimano haven’t made a 1x groupset yet.

    No wonder roadies are always the last to get any new tech innovation.

    June 15, 2018 at 5:36 pm #921451
    0
    TheHungryGhost
    hawkinspeter wrote:
    I saw a bloke on the train with a very similar looking model, though if I remember correctly was made by Pashley. Looked like it weighs a ton, but the chap was quite happy with it.

     

    The large Pashely Roadster has the double top tube.  It does weigh a ton, but its got a five speed hub gear, and with a big bloke riding it, it can shift on the flat.  Got a few double takes when passing lycra clad rodies.  Unfortunatly mine’s got a problem with the hub gear, so its off the road at the moment.

    June 15, 2018 at 4:28 pm #921449
    0
    Nick T

    It’s frame makers who’ll push

    It’s frame makers who’ll push the market to adopt 1x, rather than the groupset manufacturers. Frame designers would love to lose the front mech requirements, even if most riders want 2x

    June 15, 2018 at 3:42 pm #921447
    0
    hawkinspeter
    OnYerBike wrote:
    Mungecrundle wrote:
    The Chinese Flying Pigeon bicycle company have pretty much been making the same model since 1950. I suggest that if you are averse to new ideas, development and change, that you get yourself one of these. Cheap, robust, last you a lifetime and apart from being quite cool and the associated risk of being labelled a hipster, no-one is going to accuse you of being a sucker for whatever new and spangly tech other component manufacturers are dangling before you.

     

    In case anyone is seriously thinking about this, don’t:

    Let’s all go out and not get Flying Pigeons!

    I saw a bloke on the train with a very similar looking model, though if I remember correctly was made by Pashley. Looked like it weighs a ton, but the chap was quite happy with it.

    June 15, 2018 at 2:25 pm #921445
    0
    OnYerBike
    Mungecrundle wrote:
    The Chinese Flying Pigeon bicycle company have pretty much been making the same model since 1950. I suggest that if you are averse to new ideas, development and change, that you get yourself one of these. Cheap, robust, last you a lifetime and apart from being quite cool and the associated risk of being labelled a hipster, no-one is going to accuse you of being a sucker for whatever new and spangly tech other component manufacturers are dangling before you.

     

    In case anyone is seriously thinking about this, don’t:

    Let’s all go out and not get Flying Pigeons!

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.