Trek fx3 and the fx2 speed differences??

[gcogger]

If you don't like the sound of the 1x on the FX3, maybe see if you can still get the 2021 model - that's 2x9. It's still listed on the Trek UK site.

 

[vickster]

Good suggestion, my LBS chain has a number of the 2021 FX3 models reduced
https://www.balfesbikes.co.uk/bikes...tons&utm_campaign=saleinstockhybridbikes&
Can filter on Trek.
Unfortunately the equipped FX3 only comes in black! But it’s easy enough to add guards and rack to these bikes

 

[baby-boop-boops]

If you don't like the sound of the 1x on the FX3, maybe see if you can still get the 2021 model - that's 2x9. It's still listed on the Trek UK site.

Thanks I was looking at the 2021 model

 

[bonzobanana]

One explanation I heard is that 1x is fine for off-road because your speed is going to be so variable that it's not so important to lock into an optimum cadence, whereas you might notice this on the road more. I'd certainly lean more to a triple than a 1x for my riding.

Also off-road you just want simple up/down gear shifting it makes complete sense for that environment. You could also make the case for an urban environment where you are mixing it with vehicles on the road and don't want to be thinking about gears just muscle memory gear changes. You can only have 1x for narrow/wide chainrings so that gives you improved chain retention which also is very useful for gravel bikes. I'm personally a 1x fan and prefer the simplicity of it but I'm more of a grinder/masher in riding style being rather on the heavy side, moving my fatter legs fast is more effort for me and prefer delivering more power at a slower cadence. I feel like 1x is not such a big issue for me as I cope better with a slower cadence. The current market solutions make sense to me, 1x for mountain and gravel bikes, 2x for road bikes and 3x for touring bikes and for providing a wider gear spread on cheap entry level bikes that have freewheels etc.

 

[Paul_Smith SRCC]

I've been looking at the Trek Fx3 which has a 10 speed and the Fx 2 which has an 18 speed, does this mean the Fx 2 is better? I would of thought the fx3 should be better but i dont know.

Personally on this type of bike I would not focus that much on the difference between the 1 x 10 v 2 x 9, interms of ratios they both offer something that should equate to 'high' and 'low' enough for what this bike is designed for; using a traditional gear chart

FX 2:
46t chainring, 11t sprocket = 113"
30t chainring, 36t sprocket = 23"

FX 3:
40t chainring, 11t sprocket = 98"
40t chainring, 46t sprocket = 23"

Yes the ratios between those extremes will no doubt differ slightly but these bikes are not aimed at maximum effort rides where subtle differences maybe magnified and more relevant. Something like a Trek Emonda for example is far more race focused, a rider may well be at high effort hanging onto the rider in front up a long drag for example, a subtle difference in gear ratios can be the difference between keeping in contact with that rider or getting dropped, where as the FX range is arguably not aimed at that type of effort and be chasing that type of marginal gain.

Both the FX 2 and FX 3 are aimed at the same style of versatile riding, popular with commuters and those who desire an straight bar set up for day rides on an efficient comfortable bike. There are of course differences other than the transmission between the two, this includes carbon forks on the FX 3; as others have referenced this should offer greater comfort, but for sure differences are down to perception of the individual as to how much difference they 'feel', some may conclude the forks make little or even no difference, to others it may be a deal breaking difference.

In conclusion providing this is the correct style of bike you need then both will do what you want, the higher spec' bike doesn't morph into a bike aimed at a different riding experience, it is simply trying to tick the same boxes but with bigger ticks; you should enjoy both.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Someone much cleverer than me will come along to compare the gear inches.

You rang, m'lady?

From what I can find out it appears that
FX2 is a 46/30 chainset with 11-36 cassette
FX3 is a 40 chainset with 11-46 cassette

What that means in practice is that:
The FX2 has a marginally lower bottom gear of 30/36 vs 40/46 of the FX3. In gear inches about 22" vs 24"
The FX2 has a significantly higher top gear of 46/11 vs 40/11 In gear inches about 114" vs 100"

So you get a wider gear range with the FX2, but most of the difference is due to the higher top gear of the FX2

Don't worry what "gear inches" really means, it's just a number. Lower number for lower gears.

Although all of the above depends on my having (a) the correct specs and (b) done the sums right. So it's probably all wrong.

Edit, and while I was faffing about with spreadsheets @Paul_Smith SRCC beat me to it! We differ in that he has used 10-46 for the FX3, and I have used 11-46, cos that's what I saw on the Trek website. But he's changed that now, so we don't differ much at all.

 

[Paul_Smith SRCC]

You rang, m'lady?....Edit, and while I was faffing about with spreadsheets @Paul_Smith SRCC beat me to it! ........... We differ in that he has used 10-46 for the FX3, and I have used 11-46, cos that's what I saw on the Trek website.

Apologies, I was still editing my post as realised I had misread the 10/46 instead 11/46 lol (I had read the 10 sprocket....)

98" versus 113" does seem like quite large difference, but 98" is still larger than I choose to use on my Van Nicholas Yukon. For sure 113" and 98" maybe to some just numbers, so what do they actually mean? Put into context to quote the review of my own bike "Even though it only has a 96" top gear I find that easily high enough for a mid 20-25 mph work out". As far as I would be concerned the 98" the FX offers would be more than high enough, if I am going faster than I can pedal then personally that is when I am descending; at that speed I am freewheeling anyway!

 

[Dogtrousers]

Apologies, I was still editing my post as realised I had misread the 10/46 instead 11/46 lol (I had read the 10 sprocket....)

98" versus 113" does seem like quite large difference, but 98" is still larger than I choose to use on my Van Nicholas Yukon. For sure 113" and 98" maybe to some just numbers, so what do they actually mean? Put into context to quite the of my own bike "Even though it only has a 96" top gear I find that easily high enough for a mid 20-25 mph work out". As far as I would be concerned the 98" the FX offers would be more than high enough, if I am going faster then personally that is descending and at the speed I a freewheeling anyway.

I tend to agree. To me anything over 100" is just "really high".

 

[baby-boop-boops]

You rang, m'lady?

From what I can find out it appears that
FX2 is a 46/30 chainset with 11-36 cassette
FX3 is a 40 chainset with 11-46 cassette

What that means in practice is that:
The FX2 has a marginally lower bottom gear of 30/36 vs 40/46 of the FX3. In gear inches about 22" vs 24"
The FX2 has a significantly higher top gear of 46/11 vs 40/11 In gear inches about 114" vs 100"

So you get a wider gear range with the FX2, but most of the difference is due to the higher top gear of the FX2

Don't worry what "gear inches" really means, it's just a number. Lower number for lower gears.

Although all of the above depends on my having (a) the correct specs and (b) done the sums right. So it's probably all wrong.

Edit, and while I was faffing about with spreadsheets @Paul_Smith SRCC beat me to it! We differ in that he has used 10-46 for the FX3, and I have used 11-46, cos that's what I saw on the Trek website. But he's changed that now, so we don't differ much at all.

Thanks so much

 

[baby-boop-boops]

Apologies, I was still editing my post as realised I had misread the 10/46 instead 11/46 lol (I had read the 10 sprocket....)

98" versus 113" does seem like quite large difference, but 98" is still larger than I choose to use on my Van Nicholas Yukon. For sure 113" and 98" maybe to some just numbers, so what do they actually mean? Put into context to quote the review of my own bike "Even though it only has a 96" top gear I find that easily high enough for a mid 20-25 mph work out". As far as I would be concerned the 98" the FX offers would be more than high enough, if I am going faster than I can pedal then personally that is when I am descending; at the speed I a freewheeling anyway!

Thanks for your help its really difficult trying to decide. I haven't fully decided on a brand yet but I was thinking of these two bikes. I'm only used to an Apollo Etienne hybrid 18speed which gets me up hills really well. At certain times I run out of peddling power when the bike hits a certain speed. I wanted something more sportier, something that will last, I'm probably over thinking it. Ive been reading/watching about carbon forks not lasting long or deteriorating over time. 😄😄 Thanks again I feel I am learning alot from you all. much apricated.

 

[Paul_Smith SRCC]

....I've been reading/watching about carbon forks not lasting long or deteriorating over time. 😄😄 Thanks again I feel I am learning a lot from you all. much appreciated

Carbon forks on the FX3 will arguably be more delicate than the cheaper alloy version on the FX2. Again, I would not focus on that much either, there are plenty of older bikes using carbon forks that haven't exactly had a precious life that are still going strong. As far as I am concerned you are comparing one good bike with another of slightly higher spec' set up to do the same thing, so it's understandable that it can get confusing, especially if both are within budget.

In the end I dare say one will 'twinkle' at you a bit more than the other one will and it's that bike that will become your new two wheeled friend

 

[baby-boop-boops]

Carbon forks on the FX3 will arguably be more delicate than the cheaper alloy version on the FX2. Again, I would not focus on that much either, there are plenty of older bikes using carbon forks that haven't exactly had a precious life that are still going strong. As far as I am concerned you are comparing one good bike with another of slightly higher spec' set up to do the same thing, so it's understandable that it can get confusing, especially if both are within budget.

In the end I dare say one will 'twinkle' at you a bit more than the other one will and it's that bike that will become your new two wheeled friend

Thank you I am getting closer to making up my mind, I can feel it 😄

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

1x gear trains (where there is just one chainwheel) are a relatively new development on mountain and hybrid bikes. Some might say fashion. .......
I suspect it's as much to do with manufacturers having to provide only one shifter and only one derailleur to tune, thus saving costs

A triumph of marketing brainwashing. How to sell a degraded spec product to the customer, at a higher price than the previous version, whilst kidding them they are getting something beneficial out of the deal. Dont fall for it.

 

[DCBassman]

1x gear trains (where there is just one chainwheel) are a relatively new development

Well, my old 1x5 Pug was from 1982...

 

[Dogtrousers]

Well, my old 1x5 Pug was from 1982...

Indeed I used to ride a similar bike in the 70s and look enviously at my mates with their fancy dan-double clangers, or even, the pinnacle of swank, triples!