11:1

[Baldy]

Not sure if this is the right place for this question. If it's in the wrong place could someone move it Please.

I've been looking at new bikes lately, I see many have gearing with eleven to one ratios. Not being a techie sort I don't follow the in's and out's of what's the latest idea. What are the advantages/disadvantages of this set up?

 

[Ajax Bay]

Advantage is no front derailleur, its cable or a shifter, and a single chainring. You get 11 gears and, excluding the overlap between outer and inner ring, a compact (2x10) only gives you 12.
Downside is that you need a narrow-wide chainring (to keep the chain on the ring) or other options so to do. The range of gears (lowest to highest) can be as good with a 1x (42 ring and 11-40 cassette, say) but the steps between each gear are wider.
See https://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR...32,36,40&UF=2215&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=KMH&DV=teeth
No doubt others.

 

[Once a Wheeler]

In the end it is a matter of habit, choice and experience. For me, 6:2 or 8:2 makes a good set-up. Generally keeps things better aligned and gives an into-the-wind-and-uphill chainring alongside a wind-assisted-and-downhill one. It is also much easier to change a front ring if a different set of gears is needed for a tour or a competition than it is to change the cassette — which usually means changing the chain as well. Whatever you choose, you are bound to want to experiment as time goes by just to try out the alternatives. Most cyclists are eternal tinkerers.

 

[Baldy]

In the end it is a matter of habit, choice and experience. For me, 6:2 or 8:2 makes a good set-up. Generally keeps things better aligned

That was my initial reaction but I thought maybe I'm missing something. It can't do your chain much good.

 

[raleighnut]

In the end it is a matter of habit, choice and experience. For me, 6:2 or 8:2 makes a good set-up. Generally keeps things better aligned and gives an into-the-wind-and-uphill chainring alongside a wind-assisted-and-downhill one. It is also much easier to change a front ring if a different set of gears is needed for a tour or a competition than it is to change the cassette — which usually means changing the chain as well. Whatever you choose, you are bound to want to experiment as time goes by just to try out the alternatives. Most cyclists are eternal tinkerers.

Nah changing a cassette is easier, you just fit one of the rear wheels out of the 'team car' with a different set of cogs fitted.

 

[Ajax Bay]

It can't do your chain much good.

I don't think that that's an issue, actually.
A 1x11 requires a chain angle of 2.6 degrees to reach to highest and lowest gears.
A 2x8 avoiding cross-chaining (large/large or small/small) gets away with a maximum angle of 1.6 degrees.
https://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR...8,21,24,27&UF=2135&TF=90&SL=2&UN=KMH&DV=teeth
A double 10sp cross-chaining is 2.8 degrees.
People have done studies looking at the effect on wear of cross-chaining and it's very little (compared with dirt and poor lubrication) and the efficiency loss of full cross-chaining is less than 0.5%.

 

[wafter]

Just to be certain you don't mean an "11:1" ratio - you mean a "1x11" format; i.e. one chainring at the front and 11 sprockets at the back; often referred to as a "1x" or "one-by" drivetrain, in preference to the more common / traditional "2x" setup which as two chainrings on the front or even more achaic(!) 3x or triple chainring setup.

There's loads of stuff about on 1x drivetrains; basically in their favour there are fewer components so less to go wrong, easier to setup and arguably lighter, while they're more straightforward to operate (one less shifter and no overlap) and the lack of front derailleur / shifting arguably make the chains less likely to come off.

On the down-side the massive cassettes are a lot more expensive to replace, the drivetrains are less efficient due to the greater chainline angles, and fewer gears mean greater jumps between them making it difficult to maintain a constant cadence.

Due to the above they're much better suited to MTBs than anything to be used on-road. Personally I think there's a massive amount of marketing crap behind their sales too. I remain unconvinced, but then I don't ride an MTB..

 

[figbat]

Downside is that you need a narrow-wide chainring (to keep the chain on the ring)

Not sure what the downside is here? Is it that the chain jumps off the ring more easily through lack of FD? Because I don't see a downside of having a narrow-wide ring (other than they will gash you deeper when you slip undoing the pedals!).

 

[Ajax Bay]

what the downside is

Expense. No such item as an inexpensive narrow-wide ring. Or is there? And a specific crankset (unless you repurpose a 'normal crankset - but think of the aesthetics).

or even more achaic(!) 3x or triple chainring setup.

Suspect there are more triples than doubles in the world's cycles and maybe in 2019 production numbers. But I understand some people can't manage the complexity of shifting between front rings while riding along.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I can see an advantage for MTB/Off road in the simplicity and ease of cleaning etc, but see no benefit on the road at all over a double or triple. And 1 x 11 components seem to be stupidly expensive....

You can take my 9 speed triple from my cold dead hands....

 

[Baldy]

Just to be certain you don't mean an "11:1" ratio - you mean an "1x11" format; i.e. one chainring at the front and 11 sprockets at the back; often referred to as a "1x" or "one-by" drivetrain, in preference to the more common / traditional "2x" setup which as two chainrings on the front or even more achaic(!) 3x or triple chainring setup.

Yes one chainring at the front, elevan at the back.

 

[tyred]

I don't see the advantage at all apart from giving cycle manufacturers yet another new fad to sell people and more money.

A triple would be a much more sensible way to achieve wide range gears.

 

[matticus]

I can see an advantage for MTB/Off road in the simplicity and ease of cleaning etc, but see no benefit on the road at all over a double or triple. And 1 x 11 components seem to be stupidly expensive....

Even then, it's a tiny gain - front shifters are incredibly simple things. (especially with a friction-shift down-tube lever - which was good enough for Lance)