Monark Posted March 5, 2016 Share Why not get a power meter and fit it on two different bikes? Only then will be ever work this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted March 5, 2016 Share I think that you are focusing too much on ratio and not considering the torque needed to turn a bigger front chain ring. Yes the ratio is very close but you have to apply a greater force with a bigger front ring. I think that this is why it takes us average riders some time to get to grips with a single ring.I saw it again on a long ride this morning, the 1x riders were very fatigued at the end. 1x is very cool and has its place but I personally need a wider spread of gears that let me cater for every situationNo. Its all about the ratio. A 30/42 will require exactly the same amount of power to turn as a 15/21. Your crank arm length determines the amount of force required to turn that ratio (torque remains the same as its a simple calculation of the force over the distance of the crank. As crank length increases, force required decreases which maintains the torque figure) Even if The combo was 350/490, it remains the same. Its a 5:7 ratio, and the torque and power requirement for a given crank arm length and wheel size will remain EXACTLY the same no matter the multiple of that ratio. Lets also leave wheel size out of this, as that also affects the final drive ratio. The 1x riders in your example were either less fit than others, had a bigger ring than what they needed and thus lost out when the going got steep, or a chainring too small which meant they had to pedal their asses off to keep with you on the flat stuff. If you were running a 42/11 and they had a 30/11 they'd have to have a cadence 40% higher than yours to maintain the same speed due to the different ratio. Thats why 1x proponents are so happy with the 10-42 and 11-46 cassettes. They give you the option of almost exactly the same range as a normal 2x or 3x setups, except in extreme examples. It is NOT more difficult to turn a bigger chainring at the front if the ratio is maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted March 5, 2016 Share Thanks for the answer, but please be patient with me! Using your example, is it true that from 0km/h the 32/42 would require more leverage/strength to start turning and get to speed than the 26/34? Or not? Edit: Yes, like Monark said, that would be true from my statement? You need more torque to turn bigger chain ring compared to same gear ratio setup, but with smaller chainring?42/32 = 1.3125:134/26 = 1.3077:1 Therefore the 26/34 will be "harder" to turn than the 32/42 as it is the "harder" ratio. Wheel will rotate with every 1.3077 rotation of the crank. Its really far more simple than you think it is. It is ALL about the ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted March 5, 2016 Share Why not get a power meter and fit it on two different bikes? Only then will be ever work this out.Wont work. Need to do it on the same bike otherwise there would be too many different variables. But it'd be a pointless exercise. What wouldn't be a pointless exercise is measuring the impact of different crank arm lengths and wheel sizes on required power or torque figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monark Posted March 5, 2016 Share If it's all about the ratio then by having 9 more gears I have a closer spread of ratios and save more energy... Looking at one ratio (being granny gear) is a little false because we hardly ever ride in that gear. I'm not saying that 1x doesn't have it's place. I'm just saying it's harder work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted March 5, 2016 Share If it's all about the ratio then by having 9 more gears I have a closer spread of ratios and save more energy... Looking at one ratio (being granny gear) is a little false because we hardly ever ride in that gear. I'm not saying that 1x doesn't have it's place. I'm just saying it's harder work.Yes. Its the same reason that trucks have very closely spaced ratios and a very large selection of gears. If you choose your gearing properly, and the shifts are closer together, it is easier to move off the mark as the power requirment differential between gear ratios is minimal. If they were wider apart, they'd either stall out or use more power. Closer ratios become less important the lighter you are. But to be honest, in the case of MTB I'd say that the reason that the 1x okes in this case were in their moer were due to bad gear selection, fitness, weight or a combination thereof. But yes, i do concede the point that due to the larger gear spread of a 2x system, you have a POTENTIALLY easier time of it as the difference in gear ratios is smaller. BUT - only if you have access to gears inbetween the 2 ratios that a 1x would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted March 5, 2016 Share 42/32 = 1.3125:134/26 = 1.3077:1 Therefore the 26/34 will be "harder" to turn than the 32/42 as it is the "harder" ratio. Wheel will rotate with every 1.3077 rotation of the crank. Its really far more simple than you think it is. It is ALL about the ratio. Haha you are right, I think I'm thinking too much!! I can't get it into my head. Remember, I'm talking about accelerating from scratch and the force/torque/power required to get going. The reason I'm baffled is because I did both track and road and on the track I used mostly a 50/15 and we did a lot of standing starts and they hurt like hell to get going. But surely if I started with a 40/12, which has the exact same ratio of 3.33 , it would be easier to get going and go up to speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted March 5, 2016 Share Haha you are right, I think I'm thinking too much!! I can't get it into my head. Remember, I'm talking about accelerating from scratch and the force/torque/power required to get going. The reason I'm baffled is because I did both track and road and on the track I used mostly a 50/15 and we did a lot of standing starts and they hurt like hell to get going. But surely if I started with a 40/12, which has the exact same ratio of 3.33 , it would be easier to get going and go up to speed?Nope. Exactly the same. The reason they use the 50/15 is due to the extra teeth and less potential for a cog failure... More teeth to grab on to, less chance of one breaking and if one breaks its less of a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monark Posted March 5, 2016 Share You will have an easier time because you aren't as compromised as with 1x. You have 9 extra ratios that definitely supplement a 1x setups ratios. As you have said, it's all about the ratio. You will work less with 2x because you won't have to make a gear work through a massive change in cadence Nope, the chaps are fit and riding a 32 tooth up front. It was a long ride with long climbs. They've all come for 2x10. I would like to see power meter data showing that a 1x rider doesn't work harder. Again, i think this is like banting, it works for some but not all. If you go 1x enjoy the simplicity and slightly easier maintenance. Shimano has made it very affordable now and much easier to upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted March 5, 2016 Share You will have an easier time because you aren't as compromised as with 1x. You have 9 extra ratios that definitely supplement a 1x setups ratios. As you have said, it's all about the ratio. You will work less with 2x because you won't have to make a gear work through a massive change in cadence Monark, the reason i said potentially in the last post is primarily because te crossovers on 2x systems ans 3x systems are primarily found in the upper end of the ratios (ie gears 5 or 6 to 11 on granny and 1-5 on big ring etc etc) In the easy gears, lets make a comparison 1st: 26/34 (1.3077:1) vs 32/42 (1.3125:1)2nd: 26/30 (1.154:1) vs 32/36 (1.125:1)3rd: 26/27 (1.038:1) vs 32/32 (1:1)4th: 26/24 (0.923:1) vs 32/28 (0.875:1) So you can see, pretty clearly. The person on the 1x 32t setup will have a slightly more difficult gear to turn in all but granny granny, but in 2nd and 3rd the difference is approximately 3% If the hill is sufficient to force all riders into granny, then he person on 1x will be the rider in the better position. Likewise, if the person had a 30t, he'd be better off on the climbs in ALL but 4th gear. In 2nd and 3rd the 1x rider is putting out slightly more piwer than you in order to maintain the same pace, but its a 3% difference and that would hardly be sufficient to deem the guys on 1x "disadvantaged" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rouxenator Posted March 5, 2016 Share This is why I went 1x8 on my road bike. on the left is the old Shimano Sora 3x8 setup and on the right is the new Acera setup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pista Posted March 5, 2016 Share 48t Cassette for anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted March 5, 2016 Share Its all academic anyway. This conversation only really applies to gravel grinding, where you can control your cadence for long portions of time and arent met wih any obstacles. Technical MTB riding cam see your cadence change from 100 to 20 in the blink of an eye, and then choosing an inbetween gear is the furthest thing from your mind. Likewise, a gear that would give you a 3% advantage (a 0.6 rpm change in cadence at 20rpm) is not an issue at all. Remember - even in the above instances, that 3 to 4% difference in ratios on gears 1-4 amounts to just 4rpm at 100rpm. Are you really saying that that difference in RPM makes 1x more difficult and causes okes to be cooked mroe than you, when they actually have an easier granny anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted March 5, 2016 Share Nope. Exactly the same. The reason they use the 50/15 is due to the extra teeth and less potential for a cog failure... More teeth to grab on to, less chance of one breaking and if one breaks its less of a problem.Thanks Myles!! Really interesting [emoji106] Edit: I think I should read this whole thread, because I have thought before of changing to a 1x11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted March 5, 2016 Share Cant wait for the xt 11-46 cassette... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizkit031 Posted March 5, 2016 Share Cant wait for the xt 11-46 cassette... Yea that is when I throw a 34 oval on the front and put that big boy on with it,now the only thing is going to be cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.