1 ring or 2

[Globalti]

Having been a mountain biker for 21 years and a roadie for six I reckon MTBers are more susceptible to fashion trends. I happened upon the Jennride event in Ambleside recently and the town was awash with Identikit bearded cyclists on fat tyre bikes festooned with rugged outdoor gear, it really was a sub-tribe of a sub-tribe of the cycling tribe.

 

[smokeysmoo]

My Marin Pine Mountain is 1 x 10 and it's perfect for how and where I ride it. I do spin out at about 25mph but this isn't a problem for me.

I actually really like its simplicity which I'm reminded of when I ride my road bike that's 2 x 10 and I'm always having to trim the front mech.

 

[Venod]

I actually really like its simplicity which I'm reminded of when I ride my road bike that's 2 x 10 and I'm always having to trim the front mech

I have fitted a sram GX 11 speed (don't know the difference between this and 10 speed) direct mount front derailleur and GX front shifter, what surprised me is there is no trim on this setup, unless I haven't set it right.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I never had anything other than triples on my mountain bikes. Clogging up and extra weight from front mechs was never an issue.
As far as I'm concerned, 29ers, 27.5's and single chainring chainsets are there to please the fashion diva ponces.

The bicycle industry just wants to keep selling you new stuff you don't need in order to get hold of more and more of your cash - it's as simple as that. When the market was saturated with drop bar sports bikes, in the 1980s, the industry started pushing rigid MTB's, or ATB's as they were originally called - often heavily influenced by old roadster frame geometry. Once everyone had loaded up on rigid frame MTB's and saturated that market, then they started pushing hardtails and full-sus bikes, and increasing the wheel sizes along the way to accelerate the frequency of the bike replacement cycle. More recently it's been "gravel" bikes, i.e. road bikes that actually have some tyre & mudguard clearance - a bit like the typical non-racing sports/touring bikes of the 70's and 80's did as a matter of course, but was considered normal! The whole name of the game is to convince cyclists that the bike they currently have is soon hopelessly out of date and therefore they absolutely MUST go out and buy whatever the latest thing they and the sycophantic cycling magazine media decide is a "must have". If you stand back and detach yourself from all this industry-driven marketing hype, you can see it for the BS it really is. Bikes do NOT need to replaced with new bikes every couple of years; once you possess a bike or bikes that do the job you require of them, they can last as long as you maintain them to last. Most of my bikes have had at least two owners, are over 20 years old, and are still every bit as useful as they were on the day they were built.
I've ignored the fad for 27.5" then 29" MTB's, ignored front or full suspension, ignored carbon fibre, ignored aero frames, ignored 1 x drive trains - yet strangely enough my old "outdated" machines still manage to get me everywhere I want to go on them without any fuss and probably with a lot less maintenance headaches than a lot of much newer stuff. We like poking fun at women and their shoe obsessions, yet a lot of male cyclists are far worse fashion victims concerning their bikes & the kit that goes with them, than any woman is about clothing.

 

[DCBassman]

The bicycle industry just wants to keep selling you new stuff you don't need in order to get hold of more and more of your cash - it's as simple as that. When the market was saturated with drop bar sports bikes, in the 1980s, the industry started pushing rigid MTB's, or ATB's as they were originally called - often heavily influenced by old roadster frame geometry. Once everyone had loaded up on rigid frame MTB's and saturated that market, then they started pushing hardtails and full-sus bikes, and increasing the wheel sizes along the way to accelerate the frequency of the bike replacement cycle. More recently it's been "gravel" bikes, i.e. road bikes that actually have some tyre & mudguard clearance - a bit like the typical non-racing sports/touring bikes of the 70's and 80's did as a matter of course, but was considered normal! The whole name of the game is to convince cyclists that the bike they currently have is soon hopelessly out of date and therefore they absolutely MUST go out and buy whatever the latest thing they and the sycophantic cycling magazine media decide is a "must have". If you stand back and detach yourself from all this industry-driven marketing hype, you can see it for the BS it really is. Bikes do NOT need to replaced with new bikes every couple of years; once you possess a bike or bikes that do the job you require of them, they can last as long as you maintain them to last. Most of my bikes have had at least two owners, are over 20 years old, and are still every bit as useful as they were on the day they were built.
I've ignored the fad for 27.5" then 29" MTB's, ignored front or full suspension, ignored carbon fibre, ignored aero frames, ignored 1 x drive trains - yet strangely enough my old "outdated" machines still manage to get me everywhere I want to go on them without any fuss and probably with a lot less maintenance headaches than a lot of much newer stuff. We like poking fun at women and their shoe obsessions, yet a lot of male cyclists are far worse fashion victims concerning their bikes & the kit that goes with them, than any woman is about clothing.

This. So much this. And it's all sorts of other toys too. Computers, guitars , cars...

 

[DCBassman]

As I've said elsewhere, there's much satisfaction to be had in making up exactly what suits you. I've now done this with my electric bass, many, many computers and laptops, and now my bike. While you obviously need some knowledge of each thing, we are not talking nuclear physics here, and the satisfaction can be quite out of proportion to the effort incurred. What you end up with is utterly 'yours'.
And it can be - not always, mind - cheaper.

 

[bpsmith]

This. So much this. And it's all sorts of other toys too. Computers, guitars , cars...

I would add that this applies to almost any other non perishable purchase too.

We could all certainly make do with the most very basic of items and therefore not have to work so hard or as long as we do...but where’s the fun in that?

 

[DCBassman]

Oh, sometimes, you just gotta get drastic wiv der plastic, no argument there...Not advocating doing stuff 'on the cheap' necessarily, just the satisfaction of having something that's exactly what you want. If something that's exactly what you want is available off the shelf, well then, no brainer!

 

[Trickedem]

Check out the price of replacement cassettes. The 1x11 one are more than double traditional ones

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

As I've said elsewhere, there's much satisfaction to be had in making up exactly what suits you........While you obviously need some knowledge of each thing, we are not talking nuclear physics here, and the satisfaction can be quite out of proportion to the effort incurred. What you end up with is utterly 'yours'.
And it can be - not always, mind - cheaper.

I rather like the idea of resurrecting something that has been mothballed for years, or even discarded as scrap, and putting it back to good use. I'm not a believer in the modern throwaway world. I'm no tree hugger, but the amount of waste I see is colossal where stuff gets binned just because it isn't the latest fashion even though it is still perfectly serviceable. As for cost, you can have good working stuff for peanuts if you try. I've now got two very good Reynolds framed Raleighs running, on brand new tyres, one owes me a total of £50 and the other £55, that includes the £13 for the Cateye computer I fitted a few weeks ago. They'd probably cost the combined equivalent of £1,000 new in todays money, allowing for inflation.
Someone dumped a quality Sony Hi-Fi system in a big carrier bag in the street near work last year. I rigged it up expecting it to be dead and much to my surprise it worked perfectly and is in mint condition. More money than sense some people.

 

[bpsmith]

I rather like the idea of resurrecting something that has been mothballed for years, or even discarded as scrap, and putting it back to good use. I'm not a believer in the modern throwaway world. I'm no tree hugger, but the amount of waste I see is colossal where stuff gets binned just because it isn't the latest fashion even though it is still perfectly serviceable. As for cost, you can have good working stuff for peanuts if you try. I've now got two very good Reynolds framed Raleighs running, on brand new tyres, one owes me a total of £50 and the other £55, that includes the £13 for the Cateye computer I fitted a few weeks ago. They'd probably cost the combined equivalent of £1,000 new in todays money, allowing for inflation.

Someone dumped a quality Sony Hi-Fi system in a big carrier bag in the street near work last year. I rigged it up expecting it to be dead and much to my surprise it worked perfectly and is in mint condition. More money than sense some people.

It’s difficult to take you seriously sometimes. I am with you up to where I have inserted the break in paragraphs above. I totally get that part.

The last part is where you lose me completely, with that typical quote of “more money than sense”. I do wonder what goes through your mind?

I have no doubt that the Sony system seems like a waste of money, but you really don’t know why it ended up there. I don’t condone dumping stuff in the street or anywhere else, that goes without saying, but I wonder whether the owner was hoping that someone like you would end up using it. Perhaps they just didn’t want it to go to landfill and nobody would take it off their hands.

I got rid of my CD’s as stream all my music these days. I didn’t have to pay anything to replace the HiFi, as already have AppleTV boxes that I use to stream TV. I use the speakers already attached. So, firstly, there was no cost incurred. Secondly, I have actually saved significant money as the £14.99 fee for our family streaming package is cheaper than buying CD’s for all the family each month. I don’t have to cart them back and fore between house and car and I have released the space at home to use for other things. On top of that, my music interest is significantly broader, as I now get to try music that I never would have found or bought.

If you think about why people do things, you might actually see that they may actually have “more sense than money” quite often.

I secretly hope that you’re just jerking our chains with these comments.

Edit: My HiFi went to the Junior Shack at my boys school. They very reluctantly took it, but they thanked us soon after as the kids love it. Doubt the CD’s are so fondly thought of though.

 

[mustang1]

Are single chainrings a technical marvel or a marketing coup to reduce the costs associated of having more than one chainring? are single chainring bikes cheaper?

Someone once told me SRAM intro'd single chainrings because their front derailleurs were rubbish.

 

[mustang1]

I have a low-end triple chainring MTB. The range of gears lets me ride to the trails, on the trails with the steepest climbs, and back home again. I even get a good workout while riding on the road. And the MTB industry wants to eat into this versatility? As long as they give us choice, but I would not like a future where only cheap bikes have a single chainring.

 

[mustang1]

One of the advantages touted are that a singe chain rings is easier to clean. I guess a single speed is even easier to clean. Hey, y'know riding a uni-cycle is even easier!

 

[ChrisEyles]

I much prefer 1x setups to a double, since I always seem to find I'm "between rings" on a double and end up shifting front rings and several sprockets at the same time to keep at a good cadence and chain line.

Even better is a triple - you've got the 1x ring 32t/34t which you can stick in most of the time, and a granny for when you need it (must say I wouldn't miss the big ring much on my MTBs though, so I guess for pure off-road a 32/22 double would actually work fine for me, but I've never seen one). Unless you're counting grams the weight of a FD and extra rings is negligable, and it's not like a triple set-up is difficult to set-up or maintain either.

I wouldn't swap my 3x8 for a 1x11 even without taking into account the cost of parts.