Rotor 1x13 announced

[themidge]

Let's take 1x11, seeing as that's what everyone running a 1 setup is using right now.

Sure, but the thread title is 1x13. There are loads of other 1x11 threads out there if you want to chat about that

Of course, I think if the technology is good enough regarding shifting and freehubs etc, then the more gears at the back the better, and I'm sure at some point in my future cycling 1x 15 or whatever will be just as good as 2x. Rotor's 1x13 is getting there, but I think 2x is still king at the moment.

Another completely unrelated reason why I like 2x is that you can dump more gears at once than 1x will ever be able to, by shifting chainrings.

In practice? Not sure. I guess it depends if you prefer braking and using two shift levers at once, or using the right shift lever twice while braking.

What's braking got to do with it? I don't mean shifting the front and then the back to adjust. I just mean shifting the front to quickly get a harder or easier gear eg. Straight into the big ring at the top of a climb to sprint off down the other side, or if you round a corner to be greeted with a steep climb. It's a one click thing. Of course, you might adjust a bit at the back, but the front shift does most of the 'gear dumping'.

[wingguy]

What's braking got to do with it?

Because if you need to upshift that quickly you're on the brakes. Or you just forgot to shift while braking and now you're stuck - in which case you'll definitely find the rear shift works better than the front until you've got closer to where you wanted to be.

I just mean shifting the front to quickly get a harder or easier gear eg. Straight into the big ring at the top of a climb to sprint off down the other side, or if you round a corner to be greeted with a steep climb....

Is not as much as you can shift on the back. On a Campag system you can go 4 cogs easier or 5 cogs harder in one movement of your right hand. That's more of a difference in either direction than you get with your left hand.

On a Shimano system you can only go 1 harder at a time, sure - but if you're accelerating hard over a crest then I guarantee you it's easier to tap the right shifter 4 or 5 times than sweep the left. Of course on DI2 the left shift is just as easy as the right, but then you get your right hand multishift back.

Don't get me wrong, I still prefer 2x for the combination of big range but small jumps, but the idea that front shifting itself is a better thing to have.... Nah.

[bm0p700f]

.

[bm0p700f]

With 1x11 the gaps are fine you just pick a ring thats suits the terrain. There are feeling compromises though. 1*11 works well if like me you can produce power over a wider range of rpms. If you like your cadence in a 10 Ron range you need a triple.

For the rotor system hub flange spacing to centre will be 17/34mm now. With 2:1 lacing that means 30mm depth alloy rim min to get good spoke life. Gone are ww wheels.

If campag did 13 speed it would still fit in a standard body as there sprockets are closer and final 36t could be dished. Therefore the rotor system is merely interesting but it brings compromises.

[themidge]

What's braking got to do with it?

Because if you need to upshift that quickly you're on the brakes. Or you just forgot to shift while braking and now you're stuck - in which case you'll definitely find the rear shift works better than the front until you've got closer to where you wanted to be.

Braking and shifting as in stopping at traffic lights? I'd say it's better to just drop it to the little ring until you get back up to speed after the lights, and then go back up to the big ring. You end up getting straight back into the gear you were in before the lights without having to touch the rear derailleur.

With 1x11 the gaps are fine you just pick a ring that suits the terrain.

I think that's the main reason 1x11 isn't as good as 2x. The range and close ratios that we enjoy on 2x are sort of mutually exclusive on 1x11. When 1x15 or whatever comes, then it will probably be much better in that regard, and therefore as versatile as a 2x set up. Although, 1x15 would probably mean compulsory disc brakes... .

I think I'm going to have to build up the old B'twin with 1x, all this discussion and theorising is making me want to actually try it!

[wingguy]

Braking and shifting as in stopping at traffic lights? I'd say it's better to just drop it to the little ring until you get back up to speed after the lights, and then go back up to the big ring. You end up getting straight back into the gear you were in before the lights without having to touch the rear derailleur.

Or sharp corners. Or whatever. Why were you thinking you'd have to go more than a couple of gears easier in one go?

Look, first you said 2x was better because you could dump more gears with an FD than you can with an RD, and it's just not true.. Then you said it was better because you could dump more gears than you needed to on the front and readjust on the back. But if you just dump the right amount of gears on the back you don't need to readjust anything else. You get where you want to be with one action instead of two. So why is shifting the front better?

I'd say it's better to just drop it to the little ring until you get back up to speed after the lights, and then go back up to the big ring. You end up getting straight back into the gear you were in before the lights without having to touch the rear derailleur.

You just said that 2x overlap is a good thing because you can use the rear mech to avoid having to front shift as much. Now you're saying that it's better to front shift more even when you don't need to.

Your logic is confusing. I don't think you have a cohesive thought process on this, and are looking for reasons to support your conclusion, rather than letting reason define your conclusion...

[themidge]

Braking and shifting as in stopping at traffic lights? I'd say it's better to just drop it to the little ring until you get back up to speed after the lights, and then go back up to the big ring. You end up getting straight back into the gear you were in before the lights without having to touch the rear derailleur.

Why were you thinking you'd have to go more than a couple of gears easier in one go?

Because of these (sometimes, how much easier or harder a gear you want (and therefore how you shift) depends on the situation):

Or sharp corners. Or whatever.

--------------------

I'd say it's better to just drop it to the little ring until you get back up to speed after the lights, and then go back up to the big ring. You end up getting straight back into the gear you were in before the lights without having to touch the rear derailleur.

You just said that 2x overlap is a good thing because you can use the rear mech to avoid having to front shift as much. Now you're saying that it's better to front shift more even when you don't need to.

Just using the front derailleur to dump gears before a traffic light ("Or sharp corners. Or whatever") is less shifting than shifting several sprockets at the back. You could use the rear derailleur if you want, but I certainly don't if the situation means that the front is easier.

Your logic is confusing. I don't think you have a cohesive thought process on this, and are looking for reasons to support your conclusion, rather than letting reason define your conclusion...

I don't have a cohesive thought process, I'm just replying to your replies to my original point . Don't take it too seriously, I haven't even tried 1x!

Look, first you said 2x was better because you could dump more gears with an FD than you can with an RD, and it's just not true.

It is on my shimano set up, one click at the front vs 4 or 5 or 6 at the rear.

Then you said it was better because you could dump more gears than you needed to on the front and readjust on the back.

Not more than I needed for stopping at lights. Or even cresting a hill, I find the change from the 34 to the 50 just right. But that's circumstantial and not worth talking about.
I'm not trying to say that 2x is superior because of the overlap, just that it isn't a disadvantage like the marketing makes it out to be.

But if you just dump the right amount of gears on the back you don't need to readjust anything else. You get where you want to be with one action instead of two. So why is shifting the front better?

What I said about adjusting was a footnote to the main thing about dumping gears with the FD (adjusting isn't always necessary). Just like adjusting at the back is a footnote to the main dump of changing rings. Let's say I reach the top of a climb in the little ring and the middle of the cassette, now for the false flat at the top of the hill I change to the big ring and change to a one harder sprocket at the back. That's 2 clicks that I can do at the same time, compared to at least 4 at the back for the same effect on 1x.

[TobinHatesYou]

Again, dumping gears via a front shift in itself is mostly a foreign concept to me. That’s the sort of thing I did when I first got into bikes. If I need to dump gears, I’ve messed up a few seconds earlier. If I’m at a stoplight on a flat road, I’m going to be in a gear like 50x19. If I’m cresting a hill under load I sure as hell am not jumping to the big ring until I’ve shifted past the middle of the cassette, because I will likely briefly manually “synchro shift” back a couple of cogs anyway.

[wingguy]

Just using the front derailleur to dump gears before a traffic light ("Or sharp corners. Or whatever") is less shifting than shifting several sprockets at the back. You could use the rear derailleur if you want, but I certainly don't if the situation means that the front is easier.

When you are then re-accelerating back up to speed, when is one big shift on the front mech ever better than running a couple of shifts through the cassette? Look, my current front shifting setup is close to flawless, but for reliability of shift and for cadence management I will take rear shifts under load over a front shift under load any day of the week.

It is on my shimano set up, one click at the front vs 4 or 5 or 6 at the rear.

Six? What ratios?

Let's say I reach the top of a climb in the little ring and the middle of the cassette, now for the false flat at the top of the hill I change to the big ring and change to a one harder sprocket at the back.

Why would we say that? That's a gigantic cadence change and it's not something any sane rider would be doing

That's 2 clicks that I can do at the same time, compared to at least 4 at the back for the same effect on 1x.

But assuming mechanical, one of those 2 clicks is actually a sweep that is much more difficult to do while going full gas than the other clicks. Assuming electronic, your way uses 2 seperate clicks vs one longer click. Either system, your suggestion takes more effort and coordination.

[TobinHatesYou]

Also shifting up front at full gas just...yeah...

And who the hell crests a hill in small x middle and suddenly upshifts both the front and rear at the same time? If you’re doing that you are doing something wrong...either waiting too long to shift or positively grinding.

[themidge]

Just using the front derailleur to dump gears before a traffic light ("Or sharp corners. Or whatever") is less shifting than shifting several sprockets at the back. You could use the rear derailleur if you want, but I certainly don't if the situation means that the front is easier.

When you are then re-accelerating back up to speed, when is one big shift on the front mech ever better than running a couple of shifts through the cassette?

When the gear I was in to start with wasn't so difficult I can't get straight back on top of it with a little effort (that effort will also get me further towards my original speed after the initial acceleration aided by the easy gear provided by the little ring).
Of course, in other situations like turning a corner into a very steep climb, I only shift down into the little ring and leave it there for the duration of the climb.
Look, in all these scenarios, it depends, sometimes you don't need that much of an easier gear, so you just use the back.

Look, my current front shifting setup is close to flawless, but for reliability of shift and for cadence management I will take rear shifts under load over a front shift under load any day of the week.

Front shifts shouldn't ever happen under load, so I suppose I'd lose a bit of time by easing off, but I'll take that for being closer to the right gear with one sweep of the shifter. On a well set up mechanical FD, an up-shift isn't that much of a big deal.

It is on my shimano set up, one click at the front vs 4 or 5 or 6 at the rear.

Six? What ratios?

Okay, 6 is a bit much on my 10 speed setup, but it sounds about right to me for Rotor's new 13 speed or Campy 12, that's only half the range of the cassette, not dissimilar to the difference between chainrings. I'm only guessing there though, I have no experience of those systems.

Let's say I reach the top of a climb in the little ring and the middle of the cassette, now for the false flat at the top of the hill I change to the big ring and change to a one harder sprocket at the back.

Why would we say that? That's a gigantic cadence change and it's not something any sane rider would be doing

I just went outside in my socks to try it (on a flat road) and it certainly is a big change in cadence, but given the change of gradient in my 'scenario', I don't think it's too big, nor insane to do. I don't know about you, but I don't feel that I have to keep my cadence the same, or even within a fairly tight range, all the time.

That's 2 clicks that I can do at the same time, compared to at least 4 at the back for the same effect on 1x.

But assuming mechanical, one of those 2 clicks is actually a sweep that is much more difficult to do while going full gas than the other clicks. Assuming electronic, your way uses 2 seperate clicks vs one longer click. Either system, your suggestion takes more effort and coordination.

Who said anything about full gas? In the little ring and the middle of the cassette isn't a gear I'd be in going full gas at the top of a climb. To talk about sweeps and clicks kind of cancels out IMO, to do the opposite (big to small and one easier gear at the back) would require a long sweep of the rear on 1x. Again, 2x is not better because of it's chainrings, but because of all the other advantages it has. I concede that 1x is easier to change gear on the whole, but I also maintain that I find it easier to dump gears using the chainrings than using the cassette.

[wingguy]

When the gear I was in to start with wasn't so difficult I can't get straight back on top of it with a little effort (that effort will also get me further towards my original speed after the initial acceleration aided by the easy gear provided by the little ring).
Of course, in other situations like turning a corner into a very steep climb, I only shift down into the little ring and leave it there for the duration of the climb.

Ok, so shifting only the front instead of the back is useful when you stop at traffic lights and only want to cruise back up to speed.

Cool, if that's important to you I have no issues with it. For me, it's not something that features on my list of important functionality for a race bike groupset.

Okay, 6 is a bit much on my 10 speed setup, but it sounds about right to me for Rotor's new 13 speed or Campy 12, that's only half the range of the cassette, not dissimilar to the difference between chainrings.

Errr, what? It doesn't work like that. The hypothetical front mech doesn't cover more of a range just because the cassette gets bigger. It's the opposite. You're actually going to hit the flipside of the 1x drawback you mentioned earlier - bigger gaps between ratios. With a big cassette it will take fewer rear shifts to cover the ratio change that you would achieve with a front shift.

I just went outside in my socks to try it (on a flat road) and it certainly is a big change in cadence, but given the change of gradient in my 'scenario', I don't think it's too big, nor insane to do. I don't know about you, but I don't feel that I have to keep my cadence the same, or even within a fairly tight range, all the time.

In your socks? Again - if the way your drivetrain works when you are bimbling about is the priority for you, that's totally fine. But try it on a proper ride, at or above threshold, shifting to the big ring and a smaller cog at the same time as you transition to a false flat, and tell me it's something you'd realistically ever do again.

And remember, you said just yesterday that the problem with a 1x system is a gappy cassette. You're now arguing that cadence changes equivalent to approx 5 cogs at a time doesn't bother you, and cadence in general isn't a particularly important part of your riding. So what's your problem with a gappy cassette?

Who said anything about full gas? In the little ring and the middle of the cassette isn't a gear I'd be in going full gas at the top of a climb.

Why not? Do they not have steep climbs where you live?

Again, if the way your gears work while cruising is your priority, that's fine. But when you're not riding hard anyway, I don't see why a fraction of a second either way in gear shifting is a factor.

[wingguy]

Anyway - it'd be interesting to see what the shifter is like on the flatbar version.

Seemed like a big part of why Uno felt so nasty in the hands was the flex in the cheap plastic shift blade. Maybe a more compact, stiffer MTB shifter will transmit the feedback from the derailleur indexing the way it's supposed to?

[CallumRD1]

It is on my shimano set up, one click at the front vs 4 or 5 or 6 at the rear.

Six? What ratios?

Okay, 6 is a bit much on my 10 speed setup, but it sounds about right to me for Rotor's new 13 speed or Campy 12, that's only half the range of the cassette, not dissimilar to the difference between chainrings. I'm only guessing there though, I have no experience of those systems

This is residiculous. The difference between from chainrings, be it a 50/34 or 52/36 is about 45% and for a 53/39 it’s only 36%. That is equal to shifting about 3 gears at the back, which with most mechanical group sets is a single swing of the shift lever. (11->14 or 15->21 on a Shimano 11-28.) And if it’s di2 you can just press and hold the shift button. It takes virtually no longer than shifting the front and can be done under much more power than shifting the front.

[themidge]

Hmm, I was thinking of the 12 and 13 speed cassettes as if you'd have more clicks to do between two separate (fairly far apart) ratios, but looking at the actual specs, that isn't the case, there are just more cogs on each end.

I don't mind changes in cadence when the terrain changes a lot (like the top of a hill), but I don't like big gaps when the gradient in fairly consistent, so 1x cassettes are still a problem. Also bear in mind that once once I've shifted into the big ring to set off down the hill, my cadence will quite quickly pick up again to where it was before.

Re: steep climbs, it depends innit. In that situation I'd probably just knock it down a few at the back.

If changing rings is equivalent to changing 2 or 3 at the back, then if I want to be in the other chainring anyway for whatever reason I'll just change rings rather than sprockets. Again, there are some situations when dumping gears is easier using chainrings than using the FD.