1x11 for road? Ultimate WW wet dream?

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

Post Reply
nd2rc
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:20 pm
Location: Tennessee

by nd2rc

This is nuts if you ask me (I know, no one did). For MTB I get it, but there's not the huge difference in speed like there is with Road. Just don't see this working too well, but imagine how much weight you could drop. Pretty cool in that aspect.

http://www.bikeradar.com/us/gear/article/sram-brings-1x-tech-to-the-road-sram-r1-43808/

Image

DrGalactus
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:45 am
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

by DrGalactus

With a 50 up front and Sram's XX1 10-42 cassette you have a wider range (higher and lower) than a 50/34 with 11-28

http://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=DERS ... 2&UF2=2125

The jumps between each gear wouldn't be very nice though.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
FIJIGabe
Posts: 2241
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:07 pm
Location: The Lone Star State

by FIJIGabe

Yeah, but the weight you lose in the front derailleur and shifter, you potentially gain back if SRAM goes to a clutch-style derailleur. I really see it being useful for the triathlon or TT community, where they only need one ring in front.

As far as gear spacing, I don't see it being a big deal, if SRAM decides to go with 10-25 or 10-27 cassettes. Where I see an issue is if they offer wide-range cassettes only.

User avatar
WMW
in the industry
Posts: 893
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Location: Ruidoso, NM

by WMW

I'm currently running a 50/36 and 11-23 9spd. I'd need a 50 with a 11-32 to get the same low gear.

11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,24,28,32 I think I could live with that.
formerly rruff...

gospastic
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:58 am
Location: Portland

by gospastic

I set up one of my road bikes with 1x11, I am in Chicago and its really flat here. I am running a 50t up front and 11-25 in back with plans to maybe go to 11-28, but I don't really feel the need for it yet. I plan to use the bike in crits. It did save some weight but didn't put the CX1 RD on yet. So far having a narrow-wide ring up front seems to provide adequate retention, at least with the roads I've been riding here.

tinozee
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:53 am

by tinozee

I think it could work in flatter areas as long as you fine tune the cassette to avoid gaps around the gear combos you use the most. Otherwise I would rather keep a fd and a nice, tight 11-21 or 11-23 cass.

Nice to see Sram trying new things. I'm a euro cycling nut, but Sram and their offering makes a lot of sense in the US esp. the crit scene in more urban and flat areas. I would like a wireless RD and single front ring setup on my crit bike! But go to the big hills in italy and I can't see it happening.

HillRPete
Posts: 2284
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Location: Pedal Square

by HillRPete

Ultimate WW wet dream?

There are a few WW-tastic 1x bikes here, but their appeal does usually not originate in the omitted chainring.

User avatar
Getter
Posts: 848
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:30 am
Location: So Cal

by Getter

Not sure if this will occur on the road systems...but on the mountain bike side...the extreme angle of the chain in the low gear wears out the chainring quite fast. The high mileage riders are noting that they are getting less than 500 miles ( 805 km ) on a chainring. How will it fare with road riders doing over 5000km's a year?

I run a 1x on my mountain bike. With the bike on the stand and in the 42T...I do notice more noise and friction coming from the chainring.

bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 5777
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

Sram will hopefully offer more than a 10 /42t cassette. Currently there offering for mtb is not appealing as the lowest gear i use on my 29er is 1:1 if they did a 10 to 32T cassette then a 44T ring would be quite viable for all terrain. That i would go for and it would be light. A clutch deraileur is not needed on the road Just a narrow chainring.

The last point above is true But the chainline on a mtb is 50mm. It is shorter on a road bike Thus problem could be solved.

User avatar
WMW
in the industry
Posts: 893
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Location: Ruidoso, NM

by WMW

bm0p700f wrote:The last point above is true But the chainline on a mtb is 50mm. It is shorter on a road bike Thus problem could be solved.


I don't understand what that means. The cassette is the same width in both cases, and the shorter chainstay makes the angle more extreme on the road bike not less.
formerly rruff...

commendatore
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:51 am
Location: North Carolina

by commendatore

I could see this for flat crits, but I'm not sure it really makes sense for anything else.

I race cross 1x10 with an 11-32. For me, that cassette has perfect spacing... But only for cross. In training or on the road I'll gladly run 2 chain rings to fine tune cadence.

User avatar
kkibbler
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 9:30 am

by kkibbler

I'm in the camp that says probably fine for crits, TTs, Tri, not good for any significant distance and changes in elevation.

TheKaiser
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:29 pm

by TheKaiser

WMW wrote:
bm0p700f wrote:The last point above is true But the chainline on a mtb is 50mm. It is shorter on a road bike Thus problem could be solved.


I don't understand what that means. The cassette is the same width in both cases, and the shorter chainstay makes the angle more extreme on the road bike not less.


Agreed that any improvement in chainline on the low gear would be equaled by a worsening of chainline in the high gear. For some reason though, you rarely see people complaining about friction due to bad chainline in the high gear, even if there is a substantial cross angle. It may be that it is still within the acceptable angle range, but I have pondered if the smaller sprocket allows the chain to kind of self align more than a bigger one, as there is less wrap and bracing between the chain and teeth.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

DrGalactus wrote:The jumps between each gear wouldn't be very nice though.


+1

i'd say the jumps would be unbearable. and with the little weight savings, IMO it's a stupid idea
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7917
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Jump between gears will be no worse than 2x8. That's hardly "unbearable".

Consider:
48 front
11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28

No problem there except for the missing 16 which is still only a 13% jump.

Low gear is similar to a 39/22.75, which is low enough for most road races I've done (Patterson Pass the main exception). For hill climbs I organize a hill climb series and this would be too low, however, for optimal speed, but then we seek out the nasty stuff, and the Brits are riding similar grades on freakin' fixies.

Compare:
53/39
12-13-14-15-16-18-21-23

Image

And the weight advantage is great, but the more important advantage is you never need to worry about front shifts.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply