[Closed] 1x11 cassette weighs as much as the rest of my bike.

It's all horses for courses anyway...

- Both my XCO race bike and 12/24 race bikes are still using X0 9speed gear, light, cheap, perfectly functional, XCO bike is never raced longer than 1.5hrs so I grunt through on an 34x11-34 just fine, 12/24 bike just uses a smaller ring at the front to gear for the long haul instead.

- My trail/general purpose bikes are all Shimano 10sp with 11-36* cassettes, mostly because it all still works and is cheap to run.

- My Winter slop bike is either SS or 11sp Alfine and apart form the initial re-adjustment to feel of adding ~1.3kg of hub gear hanging off the back end it makes little difference to speed or handling

*I've just stuck an 11-42 10sp sunrace cassette on one bike to extend the range a bit, might put 11sp on there at some point, might not, but I doubt cassette weight will be a deciding factor, cost of parts definitely will be.

Thanks for the input folks. Returned my 32t chainring and ordered a 30t.. I'm going to run the 11-46t with slightly too easy top end through the winter grime then switch to an xx1 10-42t when the weather gets nicer. That way all the winter grime won't be wearing a very pricey cassette from new.

Returned my 32t chainring and ordered a 30t.

good move, that has saved you another 4 grams. It all adds up...

30? 32? Thought you could deadlift twice your body weight?

I could only deadlift a bag of sugar (probably) and I run 32T with the 11-46. 30 is pretty damn short gearing.

Like Amedias, I too have stuck with 10sp Shimano on the geared bikes (FS and CX). 11-36 for everyday and a Praxis 11-40 for mountains. Collection of NW rings in both 104 & 110 for up front. Set for life imho.

Just out of curiosity is XT 1x11 lighter or heavier than XT 2x9?

I've stuck with 2x9 as I really like having the range of being able to do 8-45km/h @ 90RPM and I find jumps >15% annoying. If I was fitter then I suspect I'd have less problems with less range and a higher granny speed.

Expect 2x to be all the rage in 2018 as manufacturers realise they're losing sales with 1x specific bikes.

A different tyre/tube would negate the difference.

and be a compromise in order to claw back some of the weight.

I just don't get it, what exactly are the benefits of 1x over 2x?

It's not weight, it's not price, it's definately not chainline and it can't be a chain retention thing?

I'd have thought the appeal of 11-46 was you could go 32t or 34t on the front and still winch up anything?

I just don't get it, what exactly are the benefits of 1x over 2x?

Have you tried it? It just makes the FD redundant for many of us.

I just don't get it, what exactly are the benefits of 1x over 2x?

I just don't get it, what exactly are the benefits of 1x over 2x?

It's not weight, it's not price, it's definately not chainline and it can't be a chain retention thing?

What are the benefits of 2x over 1x?

Depends on the bike. I've still got 3x on my Salsa because it goes up steep hills, optionally with luggage, and it can also go along roads and down fast road descents on smooth tyres.

You're looking at it wrong.

I disagree, I think your looking at it wrong. Going from 2x to 1x I would want to know what the advatages are, apart from losing a front shifter and mech.

dirtydog - Member

It's not weight, it's not price, it's definately not chainline and it can't be a chain retention thing?

Uh, yes, it is weight and chain retention. Remove mech, cable, shifter, chainring. My rear shifter, chain and mech are the same as I'd use 2x (XT) and the cassette (X01) weighs and costs about the same as an 11-32 XTR cassette. So that's what, 350g? (depending on your crank- direct mount saves a little more)

Chain retention is open and shut, a 1x with a clutch and narrow wide retains a chain better than 2x even with a chain device. Which of course is more weight.

Price... Is tricky, because comparing like to like isn't really possible. But my 1x setup (XT shifting, X01 cassette, works chainring) cost [i]less[/i] than a comparable quality (and heavier) 2x setup would have- simply because there's less parts to buy.

There's some more trivial differences... I like single ring shifting, no recovery shifts, never in the wrong ring. And it's better for mud clearing too. But these are just bonuses.

I disagree, I think your looking at it wrong.

I have one bike running 1x11 and the other running 2x10...both shimano.

In practice they both do the same job, they were put together properly at the beginning and have needed bugger all maintenance, the 2x10 is two years old and the 1x11 coming up to one year...if I was to be hyper critical then the chainline on the 1x setup is horrible looking even if it works perfectly...remember when people used to run 2x and 3x systems and get their knickers in a twist about using the big ring to big sprocket or vice versa when in the granny and using the smallest sprocket out back?!...same thing happens with a 1x setup but people conveniently forget how they used to fret over this in order to get on the bandwagon.

Seriously, if you've never been able to get a front derailleur working for you then who has been fettling your bike and just how bad are they!?

In its favour I'll happily concede that a 1x setup is easier to clean and on a tech climb or tricky decent only having to think about and coordinate one shifter is nice but far too much of the reason people changed recently is simply fashion, gears should be there doing a job and not something you actively think about on a ride, loads of people go 1x and never get it working properly for whatever reason....if that's the case ditch it and go back to 2x or whatever worked previously for you...life's too short to worry about this...and the furrowed brows and hand wringing over a few grams here and there is laughable, once a rider is properly in shape and not carrying any excess timber then he/she can start worrying that the drivetrain on their bike is 200 grams heavier than a different setup!

For those sticking with 10 speed at the moment, it's incredibly tempting, I was on the CRC website earlier and couldn't believe how cheap it is, at those prices it's virtually disposable....use for a year and bin ready for a new drivetrain next year....or keep a winter and summer setup separately....11 speed and 1x crank kits aren't that cheap yet.

If I was building my own bike I'd go 2x10 for reasons of cost and having years of good service and experience with that setup, if I bought a new bike and it came with a 1x drivetrain then I'd happily just get on and use it, in my experience the difference is so tiny as to make no difference, far more relevant to me enjoying a ride is my braking setup, saddle height or malfunctioning dropper post, location, tyre choice etc....i've never driven home thinking "that was great but it'd be better if I had a 1x setup"....but I have driven home plenty of times cursing the tyres, pondering a brake bleed etc as these can make or break the ride (and subsequently me!)....a properly setup 2x drivetrain works just as well as a nicely done 1x setup and shouldn't detract from the ride.

Front mechs are the work of the devil.

Also, one hand for dropper, other hand for changing gear

I've not lost a chain since fitting a chain retention device and I dont even run a clutch mech. No one's going to notice 350 grams.

remember when people used to run 2x and 3x systems and get their knickers in a twist about using the big ring to big sprocket or vice versa when in the granny and using the smallest sprocket out back?

Yeah, I still do.

+1 on your post.

dirtydog - Member

I've not lost a chain since fitting a chain retention device and I dont even run a clutch mech. No one's going to notice 350 grams.

If you're oblivious to weight differences then fair enough, you'll not feel some of the benefit- but [i]apart[/i] from the lower price, better chain retention, mud shedding and less shifting, what has 1x ever done for us?

If you've had to add a chain device to make the 2x work properly, obviously that's yet more weight and cost (and depending on your choice, sometimes more drag, more mud blocking, more finicky setup)

I don't think the fella is open to persuasion on the issue by us gullible fashion victims with our lighter bikes, better chain retention and uncluttered handlebars.

😉

if you're oblivious to weight differences then fair enough,

With a combined bike/rider weight of anywhere between 70 - 100kg, I'd eat my hat if you/anyone could tell the difference in 350grams.

More like half a kilo with your chain device I reckon. So what other parts have you fitted that are more expensive and 500g heavier, on your 25kg, £5000 bike? Or is it just drivetrain weight that doesn't count?

Or is it just drivetrain weight that doesn't count?

It all counts, its just the benefits are often over exaggerated in order to support an agument.

What, like saying that the 350g (or 500g) weight saving isn't a benefit, you mean?

It all counts, its just the benefits are often over exaggerated in order to support an agument.

Not so much over exaggerated and more that they matter to some more than others.

Weight of bike matters to me so I ensure I have a light bike and do look at weights of components. Not because it will make me 10 seconds faster over an hour but because I like the way a lighter bike rides.

2x is shit. Whats the point? If you can't get up a hill with a 42t rear cog you're probably seriously fat or the hill is too steep.

Why anyone wants to mess around with two shifters while descending is beyond me, especially in a competitive environment. Most of the 1x seems to have developed along side all mountain/enduro around the concept to reduce clutter, retain the chain and make life easier.

And all that extra kit for 1 extra ratio? I can't see any advantage to your 2x.

What, like saying that the 350g (or 500g) weight saving isn't a benefit, you mean?

I can only speak for myself but 350-500 grams would barely be noticable, if at all, so no, not a benefit I would notice.

If you can't get up a hill with a 42t rear cog you're probably seriously fat or the hill is too steep.

Eek, i didn't mean to spark a whole 1x. Vs 2x debacle. I was just curious about weights considering people were debating them.
I'm guessing that it'd be about that XT 1x11 would be slightly lighter than XT 2x9 if all things like chain links and cables are considered but the weight gap would widen if a more exotic SRAM/Hope/E-thirteen 11spd cassette is used.

2x is shit. Whats the point? If you can't get up a hill with a 42t rear cog you're probably seriously fat or the hill is too steep.

Why would I want a 42t? Looks silly and generally appear to be made of aluminium and wear out quickly.

Why anyone wants to mess around with two shifters while descending is beyond me

Me too, why would you? 😕

Why anyone wants to mess around with two shifters while descending is beyond me

Me too, why would you?

joefm - Member

2x is shit. Whats the point?

first let me say that both my mtb's are single-ring. i like it, but it's not perfect.

i miss the ability the jump to much easier gear with 1 click, and it's 1 click that's usually pretty reliable.

to get the same change-in-ratio from the rear derailleur requires 3 or 4 shifts, which *can* be done with one big push, but i find that usually ends up mis-shifting between gears - requiring a little nudge on the shifter to settle down.

Three more reasons to dis the 1x11 fad:

It still drops chains, almost as frequently as 2x, but then you've no way to pedal the chain back on.
1x rear derailleurs also weigh quite a bit more than 2x (!!).
1x rear cages are longer to cope with the extra size of the cassette and requirement to hold the chain over a wide range of cassette; they also spend more time in the mid-upper range position on descents, as the front chain ring is smaller. Both of these factors make rock-strikes more likely and as 11 speed chains are narrower, precision is more critical so even a light tap may upset shifting quality.

I'm another who has noticed how cheap good 9 & 10 speed has become. There are a lot of folk out there desperately trying to justify their choice and that's fine; for me, the clincher is simple. 1x11 costs way more than my existing kit and I can climb further on 2x. Happy days!

Ahh. £10 for 45g and a wider spread of gears. I can see the attraction of that.

2x is shit. Whats the point? If you can't get up a hill with a 42t rear cog you're probably seriously fat or the hill is too steep.

highlandman - Member
1x rear derailleurs also weigh quite a bit more than 2x (!!).

Wut?

1x rear mech:

[img] [/img]

2x rear mech:
[img] [/img]<

1x rear derailleurs also weigh quite a bit more than 2x (!!).

A bit, yes. Some quick googling gives an increase of 35-40g from xt 10 to 11. But my 1x10 mech weighs the same as someone elses 3x10 rear mech...

1x rear cages are longer to cope with the extra size of the cassette and requirement to hold the chain over a wide range of cassette;

Now that doesn't seem right. A 10-42 cassette needs the mech to deal with 32 'spare' links. A relatively compact double at 24-34 and 11-36 needs 35.

they also spend more time in the mid-upper range position on descents, as the front chain ring is smaller. Both of these factors make rock-strikes more likely and as 11 speed chains are narrower, precision is more critical so even a light tap may upset shifting quality.

Given that the top of a lot of doubles is really not very different to what people are running on a single, I would argue that wouldn't make a noteworthy difference to where the mech sits. Mech movement to deal with suspension and poor setup of chain length probably have as much impact.

1x rear cages are longer to cope with the extra size of the cassette and requirement to hold the chain over a wide range of cassette

Now that doesn't seem right.

Northwind makes the point there better- 11 speed mechs heavier than 10 but that's irrelevant of number of chainrings. If you have a smaller gear range (see above) the cage can be shorter and therefore lighter.

Wut?

One problem with these discussions is people argue to their own specifications, you used to run a certain drivechain on a certain type of terrain with your own specific fitness and your new 1x does/doesn't work for you because X,Y,Z.

Next poster along ran an entirely different setup, terrain and fitness and their new 1x system does/doesn't work for them because A,B,C

Categoric statements like "2x is shit" are, well, shit.

<edit>If I get a choice of drivechain on my next bike it'll be shimano all round then later, if gx stays within ~£15 of XT I'll take the cost hit for the lighter weight and greater range, kinda doubtful it will tho (as per previous post)

So my obvious attempt to troll worked.

I don't really care what you run. But to call us that have adopted it as gullible is fanciful. It works and for a lot us it is a lot less hassle when riding. It is dearer but then the bikes they usually adorn aren't cheap either so it's relative.

FWIW I don't even like 2x on my road bike, Di2 or something that would just allow me to go up and down with just one button. Not go in the other direction when swapping at the front.

poes law or edinburgh defence?

I like 1x systems, so much so that half of my bikes use them.

I like 1x systems, so much so that half of my bikes use them.

Looking at those mech weights, that's 100g more than my old 9 spd xtr. I presume slx is even heavier.

Scamper - Member

Looking at those mech weights, that's 100g more than my old 9 spd xtr

Clutches add a bit of extra gubbins- an 11 speed XTR is 222g so basically 40g for the extra feature.

I have 1x 2x and 3x in use so can't really be accused confirmation bias...

Got me there Colin, I've no 3x systems, that's my socialist credibility gone now!

1x11 Sram on all three bikes. Couple of q-rings on two of them.

Only criticism I would say, more noisy than other set-ups.

I don't even think or reminisce about multiple front rings in any way shape or form.

Like everything new in MTB - "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." 😉

Mountain biking is full of developments that seemed like a good idea at the time, hung around for a while, then went out of fashion again when folk realised they were just wrong. I'd include everything from the Girvin Flexstem to the 26" wheel. Let's see how long 1x hangs around for all but a niche.

Let's see how long 1x hangs around for all but a niche.

[i]Really[/i]?

Some people just need to feel different or special, eh? I guess they'll hold onto 2x, but we've not seen many go back yet.

Let's see how long 1x hangs around for all but a niche.

There are a lot of people who have run 1x systems for a long time - I remember winching myself around the Peaks on a 1x9 set up with a chain guide. The likes of Dirt were setting up their bikes like this ages ago too.

It works for me and it gives me space to run my Reverb lever under the bars. I have no intention of going back to a 2x set up.

Why can't we all get along 😆

I still own a 3x bike (will be 1x come replacement) and have tried 1x and 2x.

I prefer 1x. It's more expensive (subject to change), wears out faster and the range not as wide (apart from the latest and most expensive) those facts are undeniable.

When set up right I found it less hassle to fettle and troubleshoot, set and forget IME. Definitely does not drop chains as often (clutch mech gets some credit here) unless the NW ring is worn out. No more chain suck! Can slip a new chainring over the pedal without removing the crankset, not a biggie, probably possible with 2x, not the 3x smallest ring though. It's easier to clean/look after and no front changing mechanicals to fiddle with.

Ghetto 1x10 without the mech conversion or 11sp mech is flaky and if badly set up to boot awful. I've seen a few badly set up home 1x conversions, wrong chain length, poor chainline, not enough b tension, not enough chain wrap and mix-n-match knackered parts, all on one bike in some cases!

joefm - Member
2x is shit. Whats the point? If you can't get up a hill with a 42t rear cog you're probably seriously fat or the hill is too steep.

Let me know how you get on, after fitting a 52T n/w chainring, or you are Chris Hoy and I claim my £5. It's about ratios, not just the cassette sprocket size. 😉

Any meaningful studies yet into accelerated wear on 1x over 2x, due to nasty chainlines?

Is the wear rate less if you fit a 64BCD n/w chainring, limiting you to a 28T, over 104BCD chainrings?

Any meaningful studies yet into accelerated wear on 1x over 2x, due to nasty chainlines

Oh, has no one mentioned the back-pedal issue yet?

Oddly, i had no backpedal issue using an xt cassette with 42t expander, but i do with a sunrace 11-42 cassette. Thats the same bike, crankset and (model of) chainring.

I had the back-pedal issue when everything was new but not had it once things wore in. I've replaced the cassette and chain a couple of times due to wear but not the derailleur or expander cog. I use an XT cassette with 40T expander.

I've run 1x on all my bikes except the road bike for probably 15 years so I'm obviously a convert. I think it's great that the industry has come around to this way of thinking and made it work. I have to say I'm not sure about the look of bikes with massive dinner plate cassettes and long cage mechs but these days my knees (and lungs) need it so I can't complain.

I'm pretty chuffed this thread came up as it's likely to save me a chunk of weight on my next build without costing a huge amount more.

Cheers

I'm on 2x11 just to be niche. 🙂
1x10 surprised me how well it resisted wear and chain snaps. I snap chains for fun it seems. 1x10 and 10 sp in general seemed better than even 3x9. 11sp is dog turd though. The chains stretch way too quickly and the cassettes wear accordingly. I will be changing back to 2x10 on the next drivetrain change on one bike and staying 10sp on everything else.

It certainly looks like the chain is bending lots with the 1x

I've read that drivetrain efficiency depends on chain line...

11 speed on an mtb is a shit idea anyway; wears worse than 10 speed, and what's 1 extra gear when you've got giant gaps in your cassette anyway?

As for the 1x setups; they're great, have used them for 16 years on mtbs. But I'd never put any bigger than a 32t cassette on. What better way to show the world that you're uselessly unfit than by running one of those 46t dinner plates? They look ridiculous! At least with a double/triple you've got a big ring which shows you might have an intent to go fast.

How're you ever going to get any fitter twiddling away up hill on the 46t cog?!

Better range doesn't always mean a lower gear I still miss my 44T chainring from a triple to push big speeds (which had worse chainline issues at the extremes) but now 1x or 2x for me depending on the mix of terrain. Anyway I saw a 10-50T 12 speed cassette on a Whyte T130 - plenty of range - but it was almost comically huge, even compared to 42T, with a big 'ol derailleur and long long chain.

big 'ol derailleur and long long chain

Except that again, it should only be back to about where a triple was-

40 links of chain to lose on the 10 to 50. My old 10s triple, if my late night maths is right, had to lose 43 links between the extremes, so unless you deliberately ran a short chain you'd need about the same size mech.

Regarding having the big ring for high speed, how often do you really pedal your mtb that fast? Given that a cadence of 90 rpm on 34-11 will get you to ~24mph, I would say a lot (not all, admittedly, there will be some people who like pedalling down long road descents) of people dont need those high gears. My crosser only has a top gear of 42x11 and I can take that over 30 (not for very long, admittedly).

@swanny, I have to admit I miss the big hoofer gear. Not that I need it, I'm pretty sure spinning a lower gear fast is actually better. But I liked the feeling of rrrrummmmpffff you only get when you're pushing a stupidly big gear.

But my dh bike had a 36/11 top gear so it's not like the same ratios are suddenly a problem on a trailbike.

molgrips - Member

I've read that drivetrain efficiency depends on chain line...

It'll influence it, but even a rusty unlubed chain crammed full of mud being deflected to the max and wrapped round a 10T ring, is still pretty damn efficient- you can spin a wheel or crank and think "hmm, I can feel drag" but then get on and pedal and it's lost amid the much bigger inputs. And the difference in drag from chainline is going to be a small percentage of that small percentage. This isn't Science but I'd bet money it's on a level with the difference between a freshly lubed chain and the same chain at the end of the ride.

Lube on a chain actually makes it [i]less[/i] efficient.

Being objective, 1x would be ok if you didn't have to ride to your trails.
As I do have to ride on the road, I don't wanna waste any time getting there or back so a 44/11 top gear is bloody useful.

And in mass centralisation terms having a massive cassette is terrible. With fatbikes having wide BBs maybe non-fat bikes could have that and we can have 5 chainring cranksets which would only necessitate a 5/6 speed cassette out back.

Subjectively, 1x is for brainwashed sheepoids

I didn't actually say which one was most efficient! (though, hands up, I totally thought it'd be the lubed one, told you it wasn't Science)

Regarding having the big ring for high speed,

Subjectively, 1x is for brainwashed sheepoids

Bollocks.

Subjectively, 1x is for brainwashed sheepoids

kayak23 - Member
[s]Bollocks.[/s] [b]Baa[/b]

Sorry couldn't resist that one 😛

Seriously though, even though I'm still on 2x myself I do appreciate there are some advantages to 1x too - it has certainly allowed some interesting bike designs to be developed.

Back to my previous question, does anybody know the actual weight differences between 1x and 2x for Shimano vs Shimano, etc?

Probably not the best person to contribute as I have run single speed for 15 years but how many gears do you need?

Coming at it from someone who would be new to gears an having 10 or 11 gears selected in a sequential manner from one lever sounds ideal for me.

Seriously though, even though I'm still on 2x myself

2x? Why not 3x? They're the real keepers of the sacred truth. Pfft..... Sheepoid.. 😉

But I liked the feeling of rrrrummmmpffff you only get when you're pushing a stupidly big gear.

Aye, i miss kicking it into the big ring to go and chase roadies bit i miss cleaning all the mud and grass that built up round the chainrings and mech a lot less!

I went 1*9 to be able to run a proper chain device, and have gone 1*10,11 &12 since as tech allows. Its all a bit heavier and more fragile as time has gone on, but gone are the days when I'd happily push a 34/34 up a welsh mountain too, so it's all good for me. Can't say I miss the big gears anymore, I just relax on those bits!

twisty - Member

Back to my previous question, does anybody know the actual weight differences between 1x and 2x for Shimano vs Shimano, etc?

The trouble is how you pick your comparison- frinstance upfront costs vs consumable costs (1x is cheap to build from scratch, less bits, but more expensive to run, expensive consumables), what range you want... Do you include a chain device to improve 2x's chain retention to get it closer to 1x, or for that matter do you add a top guide to make 1x's chain retention near perfect... Or are you happy with 2x's standard retention as it is. There's not really a simple parts equivalence and there's personal taste involved in what's important to you

The 350g I threw out earlier in the thread (not inc chain device as that's a variable) seems pretty fair- that's pretty much for the choice I'd be making personally, for basically XT 2x, vs XT-and-X01 1x, with a fairly similiar setup cost. But that's just one price point.

At the other end of things, say you already have a 10x all-XT setup so you just want to throw a single ring and an expander on it, Oneup say that's a 367g weight reduction over a triple. So say 290 over a double? But that's got a narrower range so isn't such a fair comparison.

What better way to show the world that you're uselessly unfit than by running one of those 46t dinner plates?

Surely that depends on what you are running up front?

Being objective, 1x would be ok if you didn't have to ride to your trails.
As I do have to ride on the road, I don't wanna waste any time getting there or back so a 44/11 top gear is bloody useful.

What do you average riding to the trails?

So basically:
With 1x11 one's bike will be lighter than 2x9.

[b]But[/b]
One's 1x11 rear wheel will be heavier than 2x9 rear wheel

[b]unless[/b]
one pays for an expensive consumable cassette/driver. It looks like a hope 10-44T with it's special freehub is about the same weight as an XT 11-28 plus a normal freehub.

[b]although[/b]
The 1x11 will have less range than a 2x9 setup

[b]but[/b]
this may or may not make any real life difference depending on one's riding type/style

[b]and[/b]
Having 2 shifters may make riding, slow and fiddly, or not, and 1x may make the bike generally more awesome and retain it'c chain with a narrow-wide chainring, or not. 1x may create crappy chainlines, or not.

I've probably missed lots of stuff.