Smart man

If I raced cross I would definitely consider doing the 1x10 setup with a 42 and 11/28

The problem with 1 ring is how to keep the chain from unshipping and the inevitable thought process. This is how it went for me:

- You can buy all sorts of gizmos to keep a chain on a chainring
- When I looked at them they are rather expensive and specific and limit flexibility (more on that in a second)
- also, when you weigh up the add-ons and doo-dads and compare that with a 103gram Shimano CX70 front mech, it's a wash to me
- eventually I had 3/4 front mechs lying around so you can guess what I settled on for my chain-keeper
- I love my CX bike (Giant TCX - the slightly more racy one with the smooth welds, carbon fork and no eyelets, as opposed to the OEM frame) b/c it's so polyvalent - when I'm not racing I take it touring to France or ride the local MTB trails, so I actually want 2 rings.
- so after racing most of the season on a 1 x 9 with a front mech as chain keeper (not hooked up to the STI, I never cabled it) when it became clear I needed more firepower i.e. a bigger ring it was natural to cable up the front mech and I've never looked back. Having 2 rings is more flexbile depending on the course. I don't live in Denmark or Holland: in some of our races we do almost 400-500 meters of climbing in 1 hour, I can post the Garmin traces. So the 42x12 was not enuf, I can't spin at 120 and my power delivery becomes a less punchy above 100 rpms. And given the weight is not a big deal, it really isn't - Stybar's on a alu frame for pete's sake, as long as you don't make poor shifting choices, then 2 rings are pretty ideal.

White Industries VBC cranks are beautifully made, lightweight, still, durable, made by a bunch of nice folks in California, and allow for an almost infinite combination of chainrings. They have an exceptionally low q-factor if you're into that sort of thing. Unless you have an irrational hatred for square taper, they're a great choice, IMO.