# What problem is 1x supposed to solve?



## Bob Ross (Apr 18, 2006)

I suspect this question was asked & answered dozens of times 5+ years ago, but I'm just now looking at some off-the-shelf bikes (full disclosure: I'm looking at mountain bikes, but since I'm seeing so many gravel bikes setup with 1x figured I'd ask here) and I'm trying to figure out whether this is a solution in search of a problem, or a bona fide improvement?

Is the whole point of 1x on gravel (or mountain) bikes _just_ to have a simpler drivetrain? Fewer moving parts = fewer opportunities for things to go wrong? Is there an epidemic of dropped chains or biffed shifts due to faulty front derailleurs in off-road riding? Are front derailleurs more likely than rear derailleurs to get wanged on a rock and knocked out of alignment? (That seems wrong to me, RD sticks out more so would appear more likely to take a hit.)

What's the point of 1x? And/or, what's the appeal?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

It's frequently discussed 5 days ago, 5 weeks ago, 5 months ago








Search results for query: 1x







www.roadbikereview.com







> Is the whole point of 1x on gravel (or mountain) bikes _just_ to have a simpler drivetrain?
> Fewer moving parts = fewer opportunities for things to go wrong?
> Is there an epidemic of dropped chains or biffed shifts due to faulty front derailleurs in off-road riding?


Yes


----------



## bikesta (Dec 2, 2011)

Usually 1x has lower gears = better for climbing. I would get this if you climb, or ride at lower speeds on dirt. 

2x has better top end speed. I would get this if you ride some gravel and more road.

I would figure out what type of riding, terrain you ride more on and get the gearing appropriate for your gearing for most conditions.

Check out some gear ratio calculators online and you can punch in the gear ratios and cadence and to see the speeds and determine which gearing is right for you. 

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## Catmandoo (Nov 20, 2020)

bikesta said:


> Usually 1x has lower gears = better for climbing.


Not accurate. 1X combines the same range of gearing onto 1 cassette is all. You can get the same range - low to high, on a cassette and dual or triple chainring system, you just gain additional gearing.

At the OP question, what I find useful for 1X on a mt., bike is the range is there on the single cassette to climb and hammer, I just never need to think about what cog to go to while also switching to a different chainring. On the older 3X systems I would have needed to move to smaller cogs, while then dumping to the granny. More work and more thought. With a 1X I just shift up to larger cogs. All the range is there and no real though needed as to what combo of granny ring and cog is appropriate.

You do eliminate the F derailer, so simpler system, less maintenance, though one could argue that with electronic systems (Shimano Di2 comes to mind) the front shifting is near perfect, so nothing really gained dumping an electronic F derailer. On mt. bikes, it simplifies the area near the bottom bracket, gives some flexibility to frame designers to tweak the rear suspension without having to deal with a front derailer mounting position. Not having the front derailer also allows larger tire sizes without worrying about the derailer hitting a tire.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Not exactly true. 1x range 5.3, 2x range 4.5, 3x range 5.7 (52-10/32; 34-11/50-34; 36-11/42-*-24) respectively. But that is running a pie plate on the 1x.
Keep in mind this is only (1) top of the line, latest and greatest 1x crank. Most of the groupo's on the rack are no where near this.
1x with a 36-10/32 only has a range of 2.8.


----------



## dir-t (Oct 14, 2005)

I'm not sure how true this is but what I've heard (and it makes sense) is this;

When full suspension 29" mtn bikes were first introduced their long wheel bases made them handle somewhat poorly. Eliminating the big chainring and front der. allowed for the chainstays to be shortened (no need for a long curving section near the BB to clear the chainring). This allowed for a shorter wheelbase and more reasonable handling.

After that, folks started realizing how nice it was to have a smoother quieter drivetrain and less cramped handlebars - no front shifter made more room for a dropper post lever.

Add to that the way "modern" mtb trails are now built with more gentle grades and you don't really need a granny gear like BITD.

I love the 1X system on my MTBs but I'm glad my road bike and commuter/gravel bikes still have 2X or 3X.


----------



## bikesta (Dec 2, 2011)

Catmandoo said:


> Not accurate. 1X combines the *same range *of gearing onto 1 cassette is all. You can get the *same range - low to high*, on a cassette and dual or triple chainring system, you just gain additional gearing.
> 
> At the OP question, what I find useful for 1X on a mt., bike is the range is there on the single cassette to climb and hammer, I just never need to think about what cog to go to while also switching to a different chainring. On the older 3X systems I would have needed to move to smaller cogs, while then dumping to the granny. More work and more thought. With a 1X I just shift up to larger cogs. All the range is there and no real though needed as to what combo of granny ring and cog is appropriate.
> 
> You do eliminate the F derailer, so simpler system, less maintenance, though one could argue that with electronic systems (Shimano Di2 comes to mind) the front shifting is near perfect, so nothing really gained dumping an electronic F derailer. On mt. bikes, it simplifies the area near the bottom bracket, gives some flexibility to frame designers to tweak the rear suspension without having to deal with a front derailer mounting position. Not having the front derailer also allows larger tire sizes without worrying about the derailer hitting a tire.


I definitely made a generalization mentioning "usually" which is not completely accurate.

My advice in the end was to use a gear ratio calculator to see what gear one needs to have the optimum setup. 

If you want to geek out, this one is cool: http://www.gear-calculator.com/?GR=DERS&KB=24 

Your statement is not accurate either and would require specific gear ratios for us to determine if its the "same range." Your example does not specify 10, 11, or 12 speed or *chain ring/cassette sizes*. 

11 or 12 speed will have options to run bigger cassettes will will give you more range. I just went through this process when purchasing my gravel bike and with the options given, this was my overall conclusion of the 1x vs 2x set ups offered by Canyon. 

IMHO front and rear ds are so damn good these days, with proper tuning, its a non issue. But sure, one would argue its less maintenance and less weight with 1x.

What I find interesting is your comment on large tire size and derailleurs clearance. I run a 700x50 at the moment on my 2x set up with no issues on my Grizl. I think this depends on your frame. What specifics do you have to offer in your experience?


----------



## Catmandoo (Nov 20, 2020)

bikesta said:


> I definitely made a generalization mentioning "usually" which is not completely accurate.
> 
> My advice in the end was to use a gear ratio calculator to see what gear one needs to have the optimum setup.
> 
> ...


I guess I could have been more specific, except the entire conversation is about 1X. I am not sure and not researching, but i suspect most typical single chainrings on 1X mt. bikes would be 30 or 32 tooth ?. I think gravel and road systems tend towards somewhere in the low 40's ?. Kind of irrelevant to the discussion really as ultimatlly its the cassette that is important in 1X systems and they tend to be things like a 46 big cog on my Sunrace 11 spd. cassette or a 50 or such on my SRAM 12 spd. cassette (talking mt. bikes) and when they start at about 10 or 11, thats where the "range" comes into play, offering a similar low and high that you found on those legacy 3x systems. And thats kind of the point, you can hammer and climb, using those 11 or 12 gears, just like you used to with a 3x system where you had to shift thru the chainrings for similar (and fewer) gears.

The issue with tire clearance is not something I've experienced. Its a common comment about a theoretical advantage not having a F derailer and wanting larger tires. All dependent on the chainstay design as well. I assume there are advantages to no F derailer if you are running plus size tires, like 3". All frame design dependent of course, but not using or needing a F derailer is a design aspect.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Catmandoo said:


> cassette (talking mt. bikes) and when they start at about 10 or 11, thats where the "range" comes into play, offering a similar low and high that you found on those legacy 3x systems.


Almost, but NOT equal.


----------



## angryasianman (3 mo ago)

Bob Ross said:


> I suspect this question was asked & answered dozens of times 5+ years ago, but I'm just now looking at some off-the-shelf bikes (full disclosure: I'm looking at mountain bikes, but since I'm seeing so many gravel bikes setup with 1x figured I'd ask here) and I'm trying to figure out whether this is a solution in search of a problem, or a bona fide improvement?
> 
> Is the whole point of 1x on gravel (or mountain) bikes _just_ to have a simpler drivetrain? Fewer moving parts = fewer opportunities for things to go wrong? Is there an epidemic of dropped chains or biffed shifts due to faulty front derailleurs in off-road riding? Are front derailleurs more likely than rear derailleurs to get wanged on a rock and knocked out of alignment? (That seems wrong to me, RD sticks out more so would appear more likely to take a hit.)
> 
> What's the point of 1x? And/or, what's the appeal?


With a front derailleur, you're at risk for chain drops, especially shifting on bumpy terrain.

1x means no front derailleur means no chain drops.

2 keys for 1x's: 1) Narrow-wide chain ring (pioneered by SRAM) and a clutched rear derailleur to keep the cage from bouncing all over the place.


----------



## Grog McCog (Jan 19, 2020)

*The problem:* SRAM can't make a front derailleur any better than they can make hydraulic disc brakes.

*The solution: * Pretend a 1X system is inherently superior, and market the hell out of it.

There is one true advantage to 1X: You are a lot less likely to get stabbed by a chain-ring.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Grog McCog said:


> *The problem:* SRAM can't make a front derailleur any better than they can make hydraulic disc brakes.
> 
> *The solution: * Pretend a 1X system is inherently superior, and market the hell out of it.
> 
> There is one true advantage to 1X: You are a lot less likely to get stabbed by a chain-ring.


There is nothing wrong with SRAM front derailleurs as long as you SET THEM UP CORRECTLY. Once I got my Force 22 FD set up correctly, it now shifts flawlessly.

I have no first hand experience with SRAM hydraulic disc brakes.

And speaking of looking for a solution to eliminate a flawed product, do I need to mention Shimano shifters' appetitite for chewing cables and their push to make everything Di2 and market it as an "inherently superior product"?


----------



## Catmandoo (Nov 20, 2020)

Lombard said:


> There is nothing wrong with SRAM front derailleurs as long as you SET THEM UP CORRECTLY. Once I got my Force 22 FD set up correctly, it now shifts flawlessly.
> 
> I have no first hand experience with SRAM hydraulic disc brakes.
> 
> And speaking of looking for a solution to eliminate a flawed product, do I need to mention Shimano shifters' appetitite for chewing cables and their push to make everything Di2 and market it as an "inherently superior product"?


I think the general perception is that SRAM front shifting was never as accurate or easy as Shimano, thus the ball got rolling that SRAM had to go to 1X as result. I have never used SRAM front derailers, so cannot say. I do find my SRAM hydro's on my Epic to require greater travel on the brake lever before braking actually occurs, as compared to less travel on my Shimano SLX levers. The SRAM braking system otherwise works as well as Shimano, in my limited experience.

I do not consider 1X a solution looking for a problem, I think it's a great idea for mt. biking and find it works really well in the conditions I ride. I don't see the point on road bikes or gravel bikes, but understand that many riders in different terrain find it works as well as it does on a mt bike for the same reasons. 

I was dismayed by Shimano's decision to eliminate mechanical groups for the Ultegra and 105, especially the 105. In truth, they possibly made the more recent mechanical 105 groups TOO good and discovered folks not moving to the more expensive Ultegra group because 105 was so good. I do understand the decision to go electronic, it's a great system, trouble free generally, in my case, no issues at all in years of use, and I suspect that was what made Shimano dive into electronic and abandon mechanical at these group levels. The systems really are very reliable, so why go mechanical ?. They also stand to make a lot more money on electronic.


----------



## bikesta (Dec 2, 2011)

Anything mechanical will fail, shimano or sram or whatever groupset. Have reasonable expectations and service your equipment frequently by knowledgeable people. Many skip routine service maintenance to cost or ignorance and then blame the part/bike manufacturers when their stuff fails. I'm guilty of this for sure. 

If your equipment is perfect, then you haven't put on enough miles for it to fail/need replacement. 

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

/old man yells at cloud/


----------



## schnee (Jan 27, 2006)

What nobody's said so far: 1x helps with rear suspension designs on F`S bikes, because they can optimize for a very specific range of chainrings when it comes to managing pedal kickback, creating a more stable platform while pedaling, and other things that interfere with the free travel of the rear of the bike. 

Doesn't matter for gravel bikes, but that's what it solved for in the first place.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

What problem is 1x supposed to solve?
People make a living off suckering other people to buy stuff they could do without.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Catmandoo said:


> I think the general perception is that SRAM front shifting was never as accurate or easy as Shimano.............


I can vouch that my SRAM Force 22 front shifting is at least as accurate as my Shimano 6800 or 5800 ever was. Granted it may take a tad more mechanical force, but that's a big nothingburger.


----------



## regan40c (5 mo ago)

As some have said, I believe 1x was a solution for mountain biking. What I like about it on my gravel bike is I'm not shifting the front derailleur and then having to shift the rear derailleur a couple of times to get to the cadence I want. With 1x, you just shift and get one step in either direction every time.


----------



## Catmandoo (Nov 20, 2020)

regan40c said:


> With 1x, you just shift and get one step in either direction every time.


That one step is usually a lot of gear inch difference between gears. Thats usually how 1X systems are set up, something like a 10-50 12 spd. or 11-46 11 spd., BIG jumps that do not allow for a steady cadence, which is sometimes desirable on a road ride. As well, you often have more time on a road, gravel or paved, to figure out the front and rear shifting needed, is my experience at least.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

regan40c said:


> As some have said, I believe 1x was a solution for mountain biking. What I like about it on my gravel bike is I'm not shifting the front derailleur and then having to shift the rear derailleur a couple of times to get to the cadence I want. With 1x, you just shift and get one step in either direction every time.


On the flipside of this argument, a compact 2x shift gives you equivalent to 3-4 rear shifts which is convenent at hill peaks and valleys where you want a quick big gear change.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I noticed that riding a smaller front ring increases even the single tooth jumps, so even if you use a straight block cassette you may not be happy. I didn't think it would be as noticable as it is.


----------



## Grog McCog (Jan 19, 2020)

> What problem is 1x supposed to solve


Cross-chaining.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

DrSmile said:


> I noticed that riding a smaller front ring increases even the single tooth jumps, so even if you use a straight block cassette you may not be happy. I didn't think it would be as noticable as it is.


Huh?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

On a 50 tooth chainring, changing one cog makes about a 2% difference in cadence. On a 40 tooth chainring it is about 2.5%, so about 1/5 more. Again I thought this wouldn't be noticable but it is for me.


----------



## Bob Ross (Apr 18, 2006)

Grog McCog said:


> Cross-chaining.


Touché! I genuinely LOL'd.


----------



## Catmandoo (Nov 20, 2020)

DrSmile said:


> On a 50 tooth chainring, changing one cog makes about a 2% difference in cadence. On a 40 tooth chainring it is about 2.5%, so about 1/5 more. Again I thought this wouldn't be noticable but it is for me.


For clarity and understanding it would help if you listed the cassette(s) in use.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Catmandoo said:


> For clarity and understanding it would help if you listed the cassette(s) in use.


It doesn't matter the cassettes, he is discussing the chainring. One tooth difference on a 34 verses a say 42. The jumps are bigger on the 34 regardless of the cassette.


----------



## Catmandoo (Nov 20, 2020)

duriel said:


> It doesn't matter the cassettes, he is discussing the chainring. One tooth difference on a 34 verses a say 42. The jumps are bigger on the 34 regardless of the cassette.


True. Curiosity on my part as to what cassette is giving those numbers.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

He said a straight block cassette, it doesn't matter!


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I try to ride close to a straight block (usually 12-25 11 speed which has an 8 gear straight block), but my current 1x is a 11-25 10 speed which I admit could use the 16 and 18. The noticeable difference from the single tooth jumps is on the smaller cogs though, so the 11-15 range with a 44 tooth chainring. Because of the smaller chainring the cogs that are usually used on a 2x setup that are in the middle of the cassette are shifted down 2 gears to the smaller cogs to keep the same cadence, so that 11-15 range is used a lot more riding on the flats.

I am using the 1x setup for the Winter, so far 3 rides on this setup so I think/hope I'll get used to it. If not I may try the 12 speed Campy setup 11-34 (no way I'm getting a new body/hub for Ekar). That setup would still have 7 single tooth jumps vs 6 for Ekar.


----------



## regan40c (5 mo ago)

Catmandoo said:


> That one step is usually a lot of gear inch difference between gears. Thats usually how 1X systems are set up, something like a 10-50 12 spd. or 11-46 11 spd., BIG jumps that do not allow for a steady cadence, which is sometimes desirable on a road ride. As well, you often have more time on a road, gravel or paved, to figure out the front and rear shifting needed, is my experience at least.


I have a 11-42 for my gravel bike and the jumps are perfect on it for me, I also have a 11-50 that I use and there is one jump in there that is noticeably larger than I would prefer. But it's a compromise I'm definitely willing to live with.


----------

