Dedicated bikepacking bike... 1x or not?

[Richard G]

So continuing on from my previous question on wheels... what's people's thoughts on 1x for bikepacking now?

I can definitely see the appeal for trail bikes, but I'm wondering if for bikepacking purposes the steps between gears might be just as important as the range available. Getting up hills is always a consideration for a loaded bike, but there's also the matter of finding a cadence that works well for you on the flats so you can just crank out those miles.

Have any of you 1x running people found yourselves worrying about which front ring to run, or that you suddenly go from 90rpm in one gear to more like 75rpm in the next?

(Yes, I appreciate I'm risking having the single speeders tell me to MTFU )

[Bearbonesnorm]

I think in the beginning when 32/36 was about as low a gear as possible, it didn't really make sense for many people. As people discovered it didn't make sense and started to produce components offering a far wider spread of gears, it pretty much now does.

[sean_iow]

(Yes, I appreciate I'm risking having the single speeders tell me to MTFU )

1x1 definitely, anything else is over-complicated

But if I was going to have gears on a bikepacking bike I'd go 2x for the reasons you've stated, plus I'd be likely to riding big miles so wearing out expensive 50t cassettes would come into consideration. For a general trail bike for playing about on I'd go 1x just because it's one less shifter which frees up room on the LH bar for the dropper control.

Edit, A quick look at cassette prices shows the wide range 11sp ones are now at a reasonable cost so not such and issue as a few years ago when an 11-42+ was £100s

[whitestone]

With a typical front ring in the 28T to 34T range the change in gear ratios is very similar to sticking in the middle ring on a 3x setup and you don't hear people moan about big ratio gaps with that.

Before wide range cassettes became available and you had to remove a cog to be able to use an extender cog like the Hope TRex then the resulting gap could be a pain. With 11-42T and bigger ranges it's no longer a problem unless of course you are one of those exception people who inhabit STW who can tell the difference between 33.6" GI and 33.8" GI

[chris n]

I'd want a range of 20 - 90" or so as a minimum. That is achievable on a 29er with 34T up front and an 11 speed 11-46 cassette so 1x would be OK. A 24/38 double with 11-36 cassette is probably better with smaller gaps between the gears more suitable for the kind of riding I tend to do.

[In Reverse]

Can't really see any reason for not going 1x these days. Cost, ratios and weight all swing in it's favour imo.

The only slight downside you could pick is that if you're running a low gear that makes fully-loaded climbing comfortable, then your top end might get a bit spinny on long tarmac descents. e.g. I have a 32 oval up front and 11-42 cassette, on that I'm spinning out around 45kmph, but I'll happily take that for the probably/nearly 1kg saved and more room on the bars.

[Alpinum]

So continuing on from my previous question on wheels... what's people's thoughts on 1x for bikepacking now?

I can definitely see the appeal for trail bikes, but I'm wondering if for bikepacking purposes the steps between gears might be just as important as the range available. Getting up hills is always a consideration for a loaded bike, but there's also the matter of finding a cadence that works well for you on the flats so you can just crank out those miles.

Have any of you 1x running people found yourselves worrying about which front ring to run, or that you suddenly go from 90rpm in one gear to more like 75rpm in the next?

(Yes, I appreciate I'm risking having the single speeders tell me to MTFU )

Gosh, I nearly was going to post ssp related stuff...

For me, trail bikes = bikepacking bikes etc. I've been on 1x for 4 years now and felt 30t to 11-42t needed some consistency in the level of fitness for the climbs we have here in the Alps but would be large enough for fast rolling, low angle descents. Did that for a few years. Then came the Eagle...

The whole system is amazing. Due to the large 50t cog at the back (transformed granny...) I run 32t up front on all my geared trail bikes/bikepacking bikes. Every Eagle except for the new NX goes all the way down to 10t, which (works just as well as any 11t) makes a huge difference on flat descents to keep up speed. The range is so big, I wouldn't know why I would change the front ring. I ride a smaller ring on my fatbike which only gets ridden in snow, but all my bikes (except for ssp) have 32t. I don't ride road, but a colleague does and he also rides 1x and loves it on & off road.

riding big miles so wearing out expensive 50t cassettes would come into consideration

The 10-50t cassettes are much more expensive, are still like new, whilst I'm smashing holes into my frames and rims... Usually I go through a chain in about 1000 km. The Eagle chains have seen more and still seem hardly stretched - can't measure a difference to new. This isn't just down to the chain, part of the longetivity also comes from the modified teeth of the whole system.

just because it's one less shifter

Not just one shifter less, also less shifting. It does clean up your shifting and riding too.

On the first ride with an Eagle I remember feeling the gaps to be a bit big. They still are - that and the price are the only down sides.

I'd want a range of 20 - 90" or so as a minimum. That is achievable on a 29er with 34T up front and an 11 speed 11-46 cassette so 1x would be OK

If an Eagle is 500 % (=20-100" range) 11-46 can't be minimum 20-90".
The calculator I use may be wrong, but I get 20.3 - 92.1" from a 34t to 11-50t on 28" rim with 2.4" tyres. (as in eg 11x Sunrace cassettes - cheap, but works)

[chris n]

If an Eagle is 500 % (=20-100" range) 11-46 can't be minimum 20-90".
The calculator I use may be wrong, but I get 20.3 - 92.1" from a 34t to 11-50t on 28" rim with 2.4" tyres. (as in eg 11x Sunrace cassettes - cheap, but works)

Ah, you must be one of these:

people who inhabit STW who can tell the difference between 33.6" GI and 33.8" GI

(34/11) x 29 = 89.6", (34/46) x 29 = 21.4". Close enough.

[darbeze]

I've done all of my bike packing (apart from WRT 2013) on my rigid 29er, which is 1x10. It has a 32 tooth front ring and good ol' 11-36 out back.

I must admit, these days, I am seriously considering getting a bigger cassette to give me a lower gear without losing the top ratio.

Prices have certainly come down recently.

Si

[Richard G]

It should be noted that I'd generally prefer access to about a 18/19 gear inch lowest gear, and I'm less concerned about the biggest gear because so be it if I get a bit spinny.

If my calculations are correct, for a 10/50 cassette (Eagle or Shimano 12x) that gives me roughly a 32 up front. Anyone know a cadence / speed calculator so I could try and work out what the steps would look like?

[whitestone]

It should be noted that I'd generally prefer access to about a 18/19 gear inch lowest gear, and I'm less concerned about the biggest gear because so be it if I get a bit spinny.

If my calculations are correct, for a 10/50 cassette (Eagle or Shimano 12x) that gives me roughly a 32 up front. Anyone know a cadence / speed calculator so I could try and work out what the steps would look like?

I use this http://gear-calculator.com/ but there's also one on Sheldon Brown's site.

[Richard G]

Interesting, cheers.

[Alpinum]

I like this one:
http://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

on the left you also have gear inches and other options.

Yeah, 32t works for me too with 10-50t.

(34/11) x 29 = 89.6", (34/46) x 29 = 21.4". Close enough.

I'm a scientist and spend lots and lots of time with numbers... sorry, but it's not even close enough
No I don't visit STW forum and probably couldn't tell the difference in 0.2 g.i.. I just have a (perhaps bit notorious) problem with wrong statements, especially when I see potential that it could be misleading others. I hope you can excuse my pedantry.

[Richard G]

Yeah, I think 32 up front with a 10-50 at the back may very well work out perfectly for most of my riding.

...if I'm pootling around on mostly flat stuff I could go bigger up front / and if in the mountains, go smaller (but honestly at those ranges I would probably just be better off walking).

[whitestone]

0.2 is approximately 0.59% of 33.6, no idea of what the minimum change in applied force can be detected by the human body but I'm willing to bet it's (a lot) higher than that.

One point not considered (so far) is whether you do really need such low ratios. Do people use them just because they are there or that they genuinely cannot get up a particular incline in a larger gear? Cath (my wife) has a 1x drivetrain on her Stooge and gets up stuff that she can't get up on her 2x10 setup despite having effectively one less available ratio at the bottom end. I think it's partly due to each pedal stroke providing more force which overcomes surface uneveness better better than trying to spin in a lower gear.

I have more "problems" with long draggy climbs than I do with steeper ones especially if the latter are more technical. I'm not usually in bottom gear but 3rd or maybe 4th - it gives me something to push against and so kick the bike forward. Doesn't help if the climb is long, steep and technical

[Richard G]

Realistically, yeah... I definitely need them. I can't handle low cadences for long without completely screwing myself up, and I'd rather be having the option to do a long climb at 70rpm / 5mph than walking it at 3mph.

(I usually base my absolute minimum gear for really steep stuff at 4mph at 60rpm, lower than that and I might as well just walk)

These are generally the sort of climbs where I find myself laying on my top tube to keep the front wheel down. There are an annoying amount of them near me (and quite a few in the dolomites last weekend).

[PaulB2]

One point not considered (so far) is whether you do really need such low ratios. Do people use them just because they are there or that they genuinely cannot get up a particular incline in a larger gear? Cath (my wife) has a 1x drivetrain on her Stooge and gets up stuff that she can't get up on her 2x10 setup despite having effectively one less available ratio at the bottom end. I think it's partly due to each pedal stroke providing more force which overcomes surface uneveness better better than trying to spin in a lower gear.
:

That resonates with what I've been finding recently. I'm climbing noticeably faster on my regular climbs on a bike with a 32x32 lowest gear than I did with one with 24x36. There's a few other factors like the fact that the bike's 10 pounds lighter and it's a rigid bike on a fairly smooth surface but I can't help but wonder if I've just been a wuss on the climbs previously because I could be.

[BigdummySteve]

You could be on to something, I’ve recently changed from a 11-46 to a 10-42 and was thinking I would need to drop from a 32 to a 30 up front but haven’t bothered, the stop being soft stickers help in this regard.

[Richard G]

Ha, it's really not about being soft. It's about making sure that I'm not doing something at hour 5 that's going to leave me barely able to turn my legs at hour 25.

Everyone is different, and in my case my aerobic system can stand-up to a ton more punishment than my muscles can.

[Alpinum]

whether you do really need such low ratios

Very true. I now a fellow who rides his fatbike all year round, rides on Vee's Snowshoe XXL(!) and has an 22 - 50 as the smallest gear...

I too see hike a bike as my smallest gear and thus am happy with 32 - 50 being lowest. I'm even close to running 34 - 50 but every now and then like an uphill single track challenge.

Especially since you are dedicating it for bikepacking, I think it makes even more sense to go down hike-a-bike alley when things get real steep and stretch the legs, use some different muscles, rather than squeeze the last bit of power out of em trying to ride more at walking pace.

[Richard G]

I would agree that riding at walking pace is pointless, hence my earlier comment about minimums.

[cycleofaddiction]

To be fair there isn't much difference between 1x and 2x now at the low end. My mtb which is just used for bikepacking these days is 2x10, 34-20 (the 20t granny is a Mountain Goat which you have to do a bit of filing on the crank to get it to work) with 11-36 cassette gives me a granny gear inch of 16.01!

An Eagle setup with a 28t chainring gives a gear inch of 16.14 so pretty much the same but my 34x11 high gear inch is 89.09 but a 28x10 is 80.71!

I can spin out of my 34x11 on the flat so for me it's not having a low enough gear with 1x but the opposite!

2x works for me for bikepacking but for just riding then I would definitely consider 1x and when it's new mtb bike time I'm going to have a dilemma!

I've got no dilemma with my Salsa Warbird that I'm building as for a gravel/adventure bike it's 100% 2x!

[redefined_cycles]

1 times (30t front ring and 42t rear large sprocket) for me here for all the reasons stated by the 1 times advocates above. Once its ready (I think I'm wearing that phrase out now in various circles ) it'll be going on the Pennine BridleWay and if I feel man enoughthen maybr even one of the nice Wales 300 (I forget the name sorry) BB rides...

Go 1 times and be happy with no front mech to gunk up...

[ianfitz]

Are the gaps on an 11-36 much different from a 10-42?

I can’t see past 1x for pretty much everything these days.

[fatbikephil]

Low gears help you get up stuff. For me being able to clean a particularly nadgery climb is all part of the fun so I'll happily trade off top end gearing for a nice low granny gear (28/42 and 26/42 on 29+ and fatty respectively) Whether grinding up a climb on such a low gear or getting off and pushing is better / faster is debatable but I'd always rather be riding than walking. Plus at the end of a long day, with a loaded bike, having a nice low gear to twiddle up that last climb is nice.

But to answer the question - bikepacking is just bike riding and keeping it simple is therefore a good thing so 1x for sure