Modern trend for extremely low gearing

[Jody]

It just puzzles me that a bike designed for fast XC would need such a set up? Why not have a closer spaced cassette that is less big?
I understand that some people do use them for very steep inclines and obviously I’m coming at it from my own experience and where I ride where that gearing would be useless

But fast XC still isn't going to spin out on a 1x unless there are long flat downhill sections or even on flat tarmac. I was skeptical, but measured side by side with others you would be hard pushed to notice the difference if you couldn't see it. But for the larger cassette you get more clearance, less weight and a cleaner look.

I've still got a triple on a 11-36 cassette and it does everything I need. But it's definitely needed around here.

 

[Blue Hills]

I don't know if this is the thread for it but I read that Campagnolo's new Ekar groupset has a smallest sprocket of 9T. Nine teeth!

I know that 11T sprockets cause some harrumphing on here. I imagine a 9T one would cause intense spluttering. And imagine ... imagine ... if it was also outrageously expensive

https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/campagnolo-ekar-13-speed-cassette-2021/rp-prod202618 9-36 sprocket. Costs £235

This post is pure troll

Credit where credit is due, the trolling is all Campag's.
Loved this:
"13 sprockets make the logic of a Road 1x system possible"

 

[matticus]

Credit where credit is due, the trolling is all Campag's.
Loved this:
"13 sprockets make the logic of a Road 1x system possible"

Pfft

They could of course argue that 13 is 3 more than were needed by hundreds of pros riding GTs across the Pyrenees etc on 52/42 chainsets... Or 12 more than rode up the same cols the first time IIRC!
But is 1x13 the most logical road system currently available? Not for most riders, in most terrain, I'd say!

https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/campagnolo-ekar-13-speed-cassette-2021/rp-prod202618 9-36 sprocket. Costs £235

This post is pure troll

£235?? remind me how much those extravagant front shifters and chainrings cost!

:P

 

[rivers]

I really really can't recall ever thinking "my old triple equipped bikes are really useless, so what I need is a single chainring instead" The market never demanded 1 x transmissions at all, it was the industry that started pushing them. Same goes for different wheel sizes and suspension. For what most riders actually use their bikes for you don't need suspension, you don't need dropper seatposts, you don't need 1 x gears, and you don't need stupidly long wheelbases combined with ultra-slack geometry.
The actual proportion of riders who gain anything from modern design trends is tiny, because only a tiny minority do anything more extreme than riding on gravel tracks and tame dirt banks in woods.
What happened is the bikes made back in the 80's and 90's were so practical as multi-purpose machines that riders saw no need to keep replacing them. All the 27.5" and 29'er hype and the long wheelbase full sus stuff was just an attempt to push bikes that most riders simply didn't and don't need. I don't need to buy a "gravel" bike as my steel touring and hybrid frames will take decent size tyres even with mudguards fitted, and the MTB/Touring gearing means they will go anywhere the tyres can find traction. I already have "gravel" bikes, they just aren't called that.

Meh, my cross/gravel bike will handle most of the trails up at Ashton Court and Leigh Woods, as well as a lot of the singletrack, bridleways, and off-road stuff around here. Hell, I've taken that bike around Ben Nevis (just some of the blue trails, it can't handle more than that) But, after having a play on the trails at Ashton Court/Leigh Woods on a full sus, I have to say it was a lot more fun, and I picked up a lot more speed on the MTB. Will I trade in my cross bike? No, it's great for winter and a lot of the off-road stuff I do. But that full sus can go to different places. Will I ever get the full potential out of it? No, but it's fun. And well, quite frankly, I ride a bike because I find it fun.

Oh, and it's currently a triple, but will be doing a 1x conversion on it in the spring. Why? Because the big chain ring and little chain ring are superflous to my needs.

 

[screenman]

Pfft

They could of course argue that 13 is 3 more than were needed by hundreds of pros riding GTs across the Pyrenees etc on 52/42 chainsets... Or 12 more than rode up the same cols the first time IIRC!
But is 1x13 the most logical road system currently available? Not for most riders, in most terrain, I'd say!


£235?? remind me how much those extravagant front shifters and chainrings cost!

:P

What has price got to do with it? Is everything you own the cheapest you can buy? Of course most of us do not need these things but why should that stop us buying something we do not need but want.

 

[bitsandbobs]

Wrong. I'm pretty fussy about my beer and I don't drink cans as a rule. Nearly all bottled for home consumption and quite a bit is bottle conditioned. I take full advantage of any multibuy offers to get the best value.

I'm not entirely sure if this tangent is especially relevant to the thread, but cans are a good example of improved technology usurping traditional wisdom. I rarely drink anything from a bottle these days as cans are superior in pretty much every way, even for something that needs some conditioning. I'd make an exception for a lambik.

 

[ChrisEyles]

I reckon 32/50 is a very sensible bottom gear to have for punchy steep or very long rough off road climbs. I certainly use the 22/32 bottom great on my old school triple equipped MTB a fair bit.

Personally I don't like double cranks as the gap between small and large rings tends to be too large, necessitating multiple changes across the cassette accompanying a shift up front.

Nothing wrong with 3x8/9 though - performs as well as 1x12 in terms of available gears and is much much cheaper to replace when it wears out. Plus shifting into the big ring on descents adds chain tension, which is almost as good as having a clutch rear mech.

The top gears on a 3x8 set up are arguably unnecessarily high for proper MTB use - you're not going to spin out 42x11 on fat knobby low psi tyres - but they do make the bike a bit more versatile should you choose to fit slicks and do a bit of road riding.

Bikes seem to be getting generally more high tech (read expensive) and more specialised/specific. I'm willing to believe 1x12 is in fact optimal for proper MTB use, but for me the cost and reduced versatility put me off it. Other kit like dropper posts and decent suspension I'd consider well worth the expense and maintenance, but 1x12 is a marginal gain at best for the consumer.

I reckon one big reason for it's current ubiquity is that it's easier/cheaper for bike companies to design frames without worrying about chain ring/FD clearance.

 

[matticus]

Can someone please quantify the tyre issues with a front derailleur? (I've had a 80s rigid MTB with a triple, but that was with 26" !)

A vv quick google shows people saying they can only fit 42mm - is that typical? And is seat-tube clearance relevant with modern bikes?
42mm would be plenty for all the riding I do, but I don't currently yearn to be a serious Off-Roader! I'm mainly curious...

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Bikes seem to be getting generally more high tech (read expensive) and more specialised/specific. I'm willing to believe 1x12 is in fact optimal for proper MTB use, but for me the cost and reduced versatility put me off it. Other kit like dropper posts and decent suspension I'd consider well worth the expense and maintenance, but 1x12 is a marginal gain at best for the consumer.

I reckon one big reason for it's current ubiquity is that it's easier/cheaper for bike companies to design frames without worrying about chain ring/FD clearance.

As I've said before none of these trends are being driven by consumer demand. It's all pushed by marketeers thinking up new ways to sell riders who already have perfectly functional bikes, yet another new bike. The problem, from their perspective, is that bikes last too long. Once they've sold a quality bike to a customer they might not ever get a repeat sale, in the case of something like a traditional tourer. The bike is durable, it's running costs are low, and it does the job, so the owner sees no reason to replace it after a few years, they just replace worn parts and keep riding it!
In the case of 1 x transmissions, the bikes are quicker/cheaper to assemble as you have got less chainrings, no front mech, no shifter, and no need to fit those parts and set them up so they work properly. Not only have the marketeers persuaded a customer to buy another bike, but they have sold a bike with a better margin, and more expensive maintenance parts, so increasing their future revenue if the owner sources their bits through a manufacturer-affiliated retailer.

 

[flake99please]

I reckon one big reason for it's current ubiquity is that it's easier/cheaper for bike companies to design frames without worrying about chain ring/FD clearance.

Interesting thought. However, my 1x12 fat bike has a FD mounting option (with caps for internal wire routing). Proof that Trek at least haven’t taken any shortcuts with their frame design.

 

[screenman]

As I've said before none of these trends are being driven by consumer demand. It's all pushed by marketeers thinking up new ways to sell riders who already have perfectly functional bikes, yet another new bike. The problem, from their perspective, is that bikes last too long. Once they've sold a quality bike to a customer they might not ever get a repeat sale, in the case of something like a traditional tourer. The bike is durable, it's running costs are low, and it does the job, so the owner sees no reason to replace it after a few years, they just replace worn parts and keep riding it!
In the case of 1 x transmissions, the bikes are quicker/cheaper to assemble as you have got less chainrings, no front mech, no shifter, and no need to fit those parts and set them up so they work properly. Not only have the marketeers persuaded a customer to buy another bike, but they have sold a bike with a better margin, and more expensive maintenance parts, so increasing their future revenue if the owner sources their bits through a manufacturer-affiliated retailer.

Not everyone wants the same as you, I certainly do not.

 

[Gunk]

Interesting thought. However, my 1x12 fat bike has a FD mounting option (with caps for internal wire routing). Proof that Trek at least haven’t taken any shortcuts with their frame design.

Or they use a generic tube that’s also used on other frames.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

What has price got to do with it? Is everything you own the cheapest you can buy? Of course most of us do not need these things but why should that stop us buying something we do not need but want.

Price has got a lot to do with everything. How frequently can you afford to break it? Serious MTB'ers who really go for it and aim to be fast can do a lot of damage to their bikes and the more expensive the parts are, the more expensive the repairs get.
Would you leave a fancy bike with an expensive 1 x 12 transmission locked to some railings in a rough area where some hooligan might decide to kick your wheels and rear mech in just for the fun of it? I wouldn't, but that's your choice. My choice is I don't ride or drive anything I can't easily afford to fix if it breaks.

 

[screenman]

Price has got a lot to do with everything. How frequently can you afford to break it? Serious MTB'ers who really go for it and aim to be fast can do a lot of damage to their bikes and the more expensive the parts are, the more expensive the repairs get.
Would you leave a fancy bike with an expensive 1 x 12 transmission locked to some railings in a rough area where some hooligan might decide to kick your wheels and rear mech in just for the fun of it? I wouldn't, but that's your choice. My choice is I don't ride or drive anything I can't easily afford to fix if it breaks.

My choice is the same in your last line. Surely you have a bike for every occasion though.

 

[ChrisEyles]

@SkipdiverJohn in the specific case of MTBs used for "proper" off road riding, I think technology, geometry and riding styles have changed quite substantially over the last twenty years, so regularly swapping or adding bikes is not quite so crazy as replacing a perfectly good tourer/commuter every few years.

EG a modern slack angle 29er hardcore hardtail will be a totally different experience on the same trails to an older short travel xc full susser. Pretty much any well maintained MTB will get the job done, but these aren't really supposed to be purely practical machines, they're big boys toys, and I don't think the variety of bikes on offer is a bad thing for the consumer (even if they do only exist to push more sales!).

In the specific case of 1x12 drive trains I completely agree with your post - probably cheaper to produce, parts are crazy expensive to replace and there was never any consumer demand for it that I'm aware of.

Other innovations I have to grudgingly admit are worth the silly price tags, particularly dropper posts - it's not all emperors new clothes.

I'd also have to agree that most MTBs are capable of vastly more than their rider uses them for, and that something like a rigid 90s MTB would be more appropriate for a lot of people.

If you've not tried one, I'd recommend renting a modern MTB from a trail centre and having a thrash around on one. Once you get over the silly wide handlebars I'll bet you'll enjoy it and find yourself and to ride terrain you'd never considered possible before.