1x conversions: the new way to mess well preserved classics?

[mattr]

Oh and £99 for a cassette? You can f**k right off!

:mrgreen:

£99? Oh the naivety of the elderly.......

https://www.bike-discount.de/en/buy/sra ... tte-885572

(Think you're about my age actually.......)

 

[LumPi Panda]

Re:

If it's your bike, bolt whatever you want on it.

 

[mattr]

The cog you shift to is always just too big or too small.

Which is my reason for sticking 2x on the race bike and a play bike with 1x, i can go slower (or faster) on that.
Though to be fair, it was an issue on the old 3x9 and 2x10 systems. Unless you want to keep going up and down chainrings.
(Much easier with the latest gen 2x sideswing mechs, almost as seamless as a rear shift.)

 

[legrandefromage]

£99 was for the cheap sram 12spd cassette. I didn't want to think about the silly price versions

 

[jimo746]

Re:

Or just go 1x8 or 1x9, lost of sub £20 wide range cassettes available.

 

[legrandefromage]

yes, they are lost...

 

[torqueless]

Re:

...Says the poster who has noticed patients on front mechs

 

[CassidyAce]

Apologies, yes, transcription error - should have been 0.76.

Whilst your math is correct, you've accidentally skewed the data. You can't compare the percentages the way you have. You didn't start with a comparable datum (hence I used a 38T single ring, although pretty uncommon in real life when running 1x).

To put it into context;

28/38/48 x 11/32 = 0.88 to 4.36.

44 x 10/50 = 0.88 to 4.4

1x (in this scenario) has a larger spread for comparable gear ratios, but with the same lowest gear.


I also have no dog in this race, I happily run 10, 12, 21, 24 and 27 speed bikes

It wasn't accident; it was deliberately pitting a different but common 3x set up against the 1x set up already mentioned. In all the important respects, you're not wrong though. Choosing larger chain rings for the 3x skews the results because the increase in the big front/small rear gear ratio is always going to be larger than the increase in the small front/big rear gear ratio as we go up in chain ring sizes (provided parallel increases in size in the big and small rings anyway). Bigger rings increase the range of ratios for any given cassette, even on 1x set-ups. I used to be happy with my 1x5 Raleigh Arena many moons ago!

If we started looking at gear inches, the bigger wheels on modern mountain bikes would put a different complexion on things again. And sheer range is not everything anyway. But perhaps that's for another thread.

 

[mattr]

Re: Re:

...Says the poster who has noticed patients on front mechs

It's actually been quite well covered in the cycling press, weaknesses of SRAMs front mech, and the patents that they've come up again from both campag and shimano. There aren't many ways to make a front mech.
Shimanos side swing mech has opened up a new space in front mechs, and they are big enough to make manufacturers change (and many MTBs can be easily retrofitted, even with the new cable routing).

 

[torqueless]

Re:

I don't doubt it. I was just having a little jest along the lines of: "Let he who is without typos cast the first stone."

These pesky little snartphones ain't so snart after all, are they?


Just to get as close to 'back on topic' as I can, I have two functional bikes. Both are currently single-speed, although neither started out that way. On neither machine have I done anything irreversible that would prevent them being returned to multi-speed, (unless you include 're-dishing a rear wheel.')
I think that is the real issue- when people start cutting off cable guides and mech hangers and cold-setting stays. I mean.. anything goes if it's a 'keeper'.. always remembering that on a long enough timeline, there is no such thing as a 'keeper'..