In Praise of Nx1 - Forget Double, Triple, Compact!

[PpPete]

I presume we all agree that comparing 1x1 with Nx1 is like comparing apples and oranges.

Regarding chainline, while #speed dependent chainring spacings are roughly 2x that of rear sprocket spacings. That means by centering the single ring on the rear chainline in the worst case scenariois a Nx1 arrangement should offer better lines by 1 rear sprocket compared to a double, and 2 rear sprockets for a triple.

I'd disagree about the triple... your single ring would be in the same axis (pretty much centered on the cassette) as the middle ring of a triple - wouldnt it ?

Not saying a 1 x 9 (or 1 x 8) wouldn't be perfectly fine for many less than hilly rides, -or for a commute that you know really well, as MacB suggests, but in the interests of chain wear I think I'd still consider using the limit screws to lock out the the largest & smallest sprockets. OTH if it's not that hilly why not just MTFU and ride fixed ?

For myself I use fixed on shortish local journeys where I know the terrain, but no way would I change from my triple for longer rides, audaxes and the like. On last weekend's Dorset Coast I needed my full range 25.5" (for at least 6 of those hills a bottom gear of 30" would have had me walking) and the 108" to try and make up for lost time when going downhil (max recorded was 67 kph), and the close ratios (6% - 7% gaps) for the flatter start & finish sections.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

I'd disagree about the triple... your single ring would be in the same axis (pretty much centered on the cassette) as the middle ring of a triple - wouldnt it ?

Not saying a 1 x 9 (or 1 x 8) wouldn't be perfectly fine for many less than hilly rides, -or for a commute that you know really well, as MacB suggests, but in the interests of chain wear I think I'd still consider using the limit screws to lock out the the largest & smallest sprockets. OTH if it's not that hilly why not just MTFU and ride fixed ?

For myself I use fixed on shortish local journeys where I know the terrain, but no way would I change from my triple for longer rides, audaxes and the like. On last weekend's Dorset Coast I needed my full range 25.5" (for at least 6 of those hills a bottom gear of 30" would have had me walking) and the 108" to try and make up for lost time when going downhil (max recorded was 67 kph), and the close ratios (6% - 7% gaps) for the flatter start & finish sections.

Regarding chainline you might have missed that I was talking about worst case scenarios, which I suspect you won't disagree. Following that I did agree double/triple can have better chainlines. The outstanding question, is does it really make a difference to wear. It appears poor chainline does not affect efficiency.

If you need 25.5" to 108" gears then clearly Nx1 using derailleurs is not suitable for you. May be Rohloff would be, which is a different subject as follows.

Actually I think SS and Fixed comparisons, along with hub gears, are very valid in this discussion, as it is part of the how many gears do you need debate. If we're talking simplification via removal of the FD then the next logical step is removal, or minimisation, of the RD. I've spent a fair bit of time on these matters, as you know, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm generally more adaptable than my gearing systems. But this is only applicable to how I generally ride and could alter if my riding style/requirements alter.

For example what Dell considers a boon, close ratios and fingertip gear changes, could be a total waste to another rider who may prefer to vary their tempo more and thus change gears less and rely on bigger steps when a change is required. Both of which may seem like a total waste to the Fixed/SS rider where tempo variation is the only option and part of the attraction.

For utility or foul condition riding then I'd always favour the 1xX option or the hub gear, if it was for a regular ride like a commute, and the terrain favoured it, then I'd also consider SS or fixed. But these considerations would be around maintenance, reliability and ongoing costs. For other types of riding then it has to be down to personal preference.

Terrain is the crunch isn't it? This discussion is really about how far Nx1 can stretch for most people. I am pretty confident that ss, let alone fixed, will never be the transmission of choice for most people (except perhaps in places like Holland).

I certainly think hub gears are perfectly valid for comparison, and I never said they aren't. However good ones seem to have a cost premium, albeit reducing over time, and a cost in efficiency by many if not most accounts.

Your comment regarding tempo preference/flexibility is spot on. The interesting thing, is many who insist they must have narrow ratios also ride ss, even fixed...