Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Bearbonesnorm · Post by **Bearbonesnorm** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:31 pm

A 50t rear cassette

Has the pursuit of easy pedalling for the weak of leg gone too far? Just buy a grany ring FFS

http://int.oneupcomponents.com/collecti ... t-18t-1x11

Richard G · Post by **Richard G** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:39 pm

It's because of the obsession with single rings up front. I guess if nothing else you could go relatively big on the front with this (for decent speed on the flats) and have a decent escape gear for when you inevitably come up against something with a half decent incline.

I don't think I'll bother on an XC bike until 12 speed comes around. Obviously for your average trail centre stuff it's a different story.

voodoo_simon · Post by **voodoo_simon** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:46 pm

Been testing a bike with a 42 on it, standard sram cassette but to many jumps between the gears. Think I'll stick with 12-36 for now

whitestone · Post by **whitestone** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:54 pm

For me a 40T provides a small enough gear as it is (either 30T or 32T up front). From the blurb on the linked page it seems as if it's really for people who don't want to lose the top end so need to fit a larger chain ring. I'm not that bothered about the top end, by the time I'm spinning out in 32-11 I'd prefer to freewheel

cyclingtiger · Post by **cyclingtiger** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:19 pm

£85 + p&p for a single sprocket? I suspect that demonstrates the money to sense ratio of the target audience.

rudedog · Post by **rudedog** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:42 pm

More weight for the back wheel too.

Bearbonesnorm · Post by **Bearbonesnorm** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:48 pm

Just imagine if there were a way that you could fit a second 'gear shifting device' somewhere else on the bike and maybe incorporate a second set of gears. Used in unison with those at the back, it could potentially produce a really wide gear range ... oh, if only someone would design such a thing, I'm sure it would be a real boon to those who struggle to ride up hills.

whitestone · Post by **whitestone** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:54 pm

Bearbonesnorm wrote:Just imagine if there were a way that you could fit a second 'gear shifting device' somewhere else on the bike and maybe incorporate a second set of gears. Used in unison with those at the back, it could potentially produce a really wide gear range ... oh, if only someone would design such a thing, I'm sure it would be a real boon to those who struggle to ride up hills.

It'll never catch on Stuart - just think of all that extra weight that doesn't get used for half the time, then when you do use it you aren't using the other bit. Nah!

benp1 · Post by **benp1** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:08 pm

Single rings are more aesthetically pleasing

But don't they also give better clearance in certain cases, and manufacturers are able to design bikes specifically for single ring use

Disclaimer - all my bikes have a single ring up front. 2 1x10s and 2 1x1s, soon to add a 1x3

Bearbonesnorm · Post by **Bearbonesnorm** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:17 pm

Single rings are more aesthetically pleasing

Those who've confused their intentions with their abilities will be glad to know their bike looks nice ... when they're pushing it up a hill

manufacturers are able to design bikes specifically for single ring use

I imagine they can readily design bikes for 2 or even more rings too. The cynic within says - "it's cheaper for manufacturers to design bikes specifically for single ring use".

I've absolutely nothing against 1 x ? but there must reach a point where the pursuit of such a low gear (you know, like you used to have) becomes silly.

Ray Young · Post by **Ray Young** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:18 pm

Often thought about the single ring route but could never properly convince myself as I use all the range of my cassette in both granny and middle ring.
Wonder how much weight I'd save dumping the big ring ?

Bearbonesnorm · Post by **Bearbonesnorm** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:19 pm

Wonder how much weight I'd save dumping the big ring

Wonder how much weight I'd save by having a big dump ... about the same

Richard G · Post by **Richard G** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:27 pm

You could do both, and then you'd be flying!

This obsession with weight loss does amuse me. Especially as most people I see out and about could stand to lose a whole bike worth of weight anyway.

benp1 · Post by **benp1** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:45 pm

50t does sound a bit excessive

I've been happy with my 1x10 options - one on my MTB and one on my gravel bike commuter

I've not yet found anything I can't grind up - I think I'm 32x40 in my lowest gear, on anything really steep I'm wheelying and on anything long and gradual my legs are likely to give up screaming so I'll be doing the walk of shame. Walking isn't really that much slower than v low gear riding anyway

Since getting fitter (note fitter, not fit!) I find my 1x10 able to get me round the places that my 3x9 bike was able to without any extra punishment. If I was doing big trips that had some major hills then I might change my mind, most of my bikepacking/bigger rides is never more than 3 days / 2 nights

Both these bikes were bought with this set up - although I did spec my Solaris with a 1x10 set up, so if I was already 2x or 3x I'm not sure how quickly I'd be changing

a neat option is the 2x up front without a shifter, so you have a bail out in an emergency

edit - 1x10 is also handy on my Solaris as I have my reverb button where the shifter would be

whitestone · Post by **whitestone** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:52 pm

Richard G wrote:You could do both, and then you'd be flying!

This obsession with weight loss does amuse me. Especially as most people I see out and about could stand to lose a whole bike worth of weight anyway.

I don't know what you mean

I went 1x when getting my current bike. My thought process was "give it a go, if I don't get on with it I can always stick a front mech on". Two years (nearly) later and I haven't felt like sticking that front mech on. Sure, there's been one or two hills where I've been forced to walk but the likelyhood is that I would have been getting off a couple of bike lengths further anyway even if I'd got a 2x or 3x system.

1x suits me (sir!) but I appreciate that it's not for everyone. It's a bike, the idea is to have fun not follow fashion or do something simply to be in the "gang". My CX and road bikes both have 2x setups, if I was being evangelical then I'd have converted them to 1x.

Richard G · Post by **Richard G** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:58 pm

My main problem is spinning out the big ring rather than running out of climbing gears. Got to put these chunky thighs to their best use!

GregMay · Post by **GregMay** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:32 pm

*smiles the smug smile of a mostly single-speed MTBer*

jay91 · Post by **jay91** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:38 pm

GregMay wrote:*smiles the smug smile of a mostly single-speed MTBer*

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:25 pm

whitestone wrote:
Bearbonesnorm wrote:Just imagine if there were a way that you could fit a second 'gear shifting device' somewhere else on the bike and maybe incorporate a second set of gears. Used in unison with those at the back, it could potentially produce a really wide gear range ... oh, if only someone would design such a thing, I'm sure it would be a real boon to those who struggle to ride up hills.
It'll never catch on Stuart - just think of all that extra weight that doesn't get used for half the time, then when you do use it you aren't using the other bit. Nah!

In much the same way as you can only use one sprocket at a time?

Surely, the only logical way forward is to dispense with all these mostly redundant gears and go singlespeed. At least then only the saddle doesn't get used when you stand up to pedal

benp1 · Post by **benp1** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:39 pm

Sod it, I'm going to get a electric motor for mine

voodoo_simon · Post by **voodoo_simon** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:56 pm

Ray Young wrote:Often thought about the single ring route but could never properly convince myself as I use all the range of my cassette in both granny and middle ring.
Wonder how much weight I'd save dumping the big ring ?

Was a revelation for me going to a 1x10 system, completely changed my riding

I did go from a singlespeed though...

ScotRoutes · Post by **ScotRoutes** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:38 pm

benp1 wrote: a neat option is the 2x up front without a shifter, so you have a bail out in an emergency

edit - 1x10 is also handy on my Solaris as I have my reverb button where the shifter would be

So - a button on your bars to change your seatpost height to adapt to ascents and descents is a good thing but one to let you use your full range of gears for ascents and descents is a bad thing.

fatbikephil · Post by **fatbikephil** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:41 pm

I always reckon that you can never go too low but I think a better solution is to go small on the front. A mate has finally seen the light and gone 1x10 by means of removing the middle ring, shifter and mech and accepting that a 22 - 11 top gear is actually plenty enough. It is a fat bike tho...

Personally I always hated the horrific bodge that front mechs are and find that only having to concentrate on one shifter better suits my little brain

Now if someone re-invented the Browning electric front shifting, i might be in!

TheBrownDog · Post by **TheBrownDog** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:43 pm

Quite like the idea of a 50t sprocket. Comes with a replacement cage too hence the silly price tag. Im happy with 40t on my 1x set-ups so I wont be buying one though.

But does anyone else remember when the Shimano Megarange cassette came out about 15 years ago and we all squawked at the prospect of jumping from 24t to 34t but using it was pretty nice - you got a nice even spread of gears in the lower ranges and then a bail out gear which you'd only use when you were breathing through your ears. Same idea for the OneUp 50T though the Megarange was mostly aimed at commuters and tourers wanting an easier gear for their 2x groupos.

vorlich · Post by **vorlich** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:45 pm

a neat option is the 2x up front without a shifter, so you have a bail out in an emergency

I can think of a better word than 'neat' to describe this.

Have the courage of your convictions man, not this wishy-washy, half way house, worst of both worlds compromise. I'll never be a singlespeeder, but I can at least sort of understand the logic/appeal. But this just sounds like a daft idea to save a few grams. That being said, thinking back to the ridiculous stem setup on my Jones, I'm not really in the position to criticise anyone else personal choice as to how they set up their bike.

Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.

Re: Surely 11 days too early - 50t cassette.