Friction test between 1x and 2x drivetrain - is 1x an upgrade?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 42 of 42
  1. #1
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,934

    Friction test between 1x and 2x drivetrain - is 1x an upgrade?


  2. #2
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,332
    Finally, the data!

  3. #3
    cmg
    cmg is offline
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,263
    Im going back to 3x, hell l might go 4x, the friction savings will be worth it
    always mad and usually drunk......

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,946
    O noes! Friction in your drivetrain is the real reason you don't have all teh KOMz.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,053
    OMG 3 watts. If I had 3 more Watts I would be a world champion.



    (ok maybe not).
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  6. #6
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,332
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    OMG 3 watts. If I had 3 more Watts I would be a world champion.
    Its funny, you could say that jokingly, but I wonder if that could have been the difference between Kerschbaumer and Schurter.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,681
    I've had enough of 1x12. I'm going 12x1.

  8. #8
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,278
    Looks like 1x1 may be an upgrade.
    By continuing to browse my posts, you agree to send me cookies.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: the_joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    1,210
    It's almost like Shimano knows what they're talking about
    My name is George. Iím unemployed and I live with my parents.
    2017 BMC Speedfox 25-622 ISO
    2017 Salsa Timberjack 40-584 ISO

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,280
    Or, there is this 1x:



    Now just to develop a MTB frame for it.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    OMG 3 watts. If I had 3 more Watts I would be a world champion.



    (ok maybe not).
    I wonder how much the lighter weight of a 1x offsets that power loss.
    Ragley Big Wig, Sunday Soundwave (BMX), Nashbar CXSS (workout)

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,280
    Quote Originally Posted by 93EXCivic View Post
    I wonder how much the lighter weight of a 1x offsets that power loss.
    Not much. The larger cog in the back largely offsets the loss of the chainring. The weight of the derailleur, shifter and cable might be 1/2 lb. If rider+bike+kit = 200#, that is only a 1/4% change where as if a rider has a 300 watt FTP, 3 watts is 1%.

  13. #13
    Interplanetary Poultry
    Reputation: scatterbrained's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    506
    I'd rather deal with the friction loss of a 1x system than the constant chain loss of the 2x system. When I was running 2x I would regularly loose the chain from the front over fast, chattery downhill terrain. Running 1x I can use a proper chainguide. Totally worth the 3 watts.
    Editor In Chief, "Internet Tough Guy Magazine"
    "Home of Chuck Norris' Keyboard"

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,946
    This is relevant to the tiny number of people who make $$$ from watts. For 99.9% of riders, a simpler bike means less hassle and more fun.

  15. #15
    No known cure
    Reputation: Vader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,955
    I've been on 1x since we had six gears out back. It's not about weight, friction or crosschaining. There's just no need for the wide range of gears on a mountain bike. At least for me. My two bikes are a single speed and a 36tx9. Yeah, I never "upgraded". Why? I can climb all the trails I ride with that range.

    I don't get having all that extra shit on your bike just to soft pedal to the next Enduro run.

    I can walk up a hill faster than you can ride pedaling that pie plate marketing says you need.

    Rant over.
    Ripping trails and tipping ales

  16. #16
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,758
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    Or, there is this 1x:



    Now just to develop a MTB frame for it.
    First they need a functioning prototype for ANY bike.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Train Wreck View Post
    Its funny, you could say that jokingly, but I wonder if that could have been the difference between Kerschbaumer and Schurter.
    that is probably the only time 3 watts makes a difference.


    All my Mtn bikes are 1x.
    1x11, 1x11, and 1x1

    my road bike is 2x11.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  18. #18
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,460
    All that effort and their graphics guy couldn't even post a figure I could read.


  19. #19
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,448
    What this article doesn't show very well is that while it's only 3 watts average, that includes 2x ratios you'd never use, and it's much greater in your 1x bottom gear.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  20. #20
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,542
    The effort to shove over that front derailleur, you know the one, the one that you've never maintained, that's got to cost you way more than 3 watts. More like 300. Plus, with 1x, I don't have to think about when to shift up front, and that extra effort made my brain hurt.

  21. #21
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,332
    How long before front derailleurs become obsolete?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    11,691
    Friction and drivetrain wear, 2x does have a few advantages.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    What this article doesn't show very well is that while it's only 3 watts average, that includes 2x ratios you'd never use, and it's much greater in your 1x bottom gear.
    No, it's 3 watts average (or 1%) assuming only the use of the 15 most efficient gears on the 2x drivetrain. That usage is not consistent with how drivetrains are used on bikes and the comparison is not indicative of MTB drivetrains either.

    When you choose, instead, the chainring that minimizes front shifting the difference will be less. Also, the primary difference is in the consistently smaller cogs of the 1x drivetrain, the 1x drivetrain in this test had a smaller "big" ring, smaller top cog, and coarser spacing. It's not clear how that translates to MTB gearing but it's clear why the results are what they are.

    Also, I do not trust the discussion because individual contributions are not quantified. All this information is already known and has been for a long time. Cross chaining is not a dominant contributor despite the article suggesting that it is. Finally, Zinn has knowingly misrepresented test data in the past. Not saying he did this time, but he has no credibility.

    Zinn is the one who pushed the whole "proportional crank" nonsense. He was so convinced that he set out to prove it through testing, but the problem was that the testing proved him to be wrong. He eventually acknowledged this yet doubled down on his proportional crank claims, withdrew all his testing, and continues to lie about it to this day since his entire business model is built on it. Just so you know who this "expert" is.

  24. #24
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Train Wreck View Post
    How long before front derailleurs become obsolete?



    Never.
    "These things are very fancy commuter bikes or really bad dirt bikes, but they are not mountain bikes." - J. Mac

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedalon2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryman View Post
    The effort to shove over that front derailleur, you know the one, the one that you've never maintained, that's got to cost you way more than 3 watts. More like 300. Plus, with 1x, I don't have to think about when to shift up front, and that extra effort made my brain hurt.
    I run 28/38x11-42 Di2 XT with only one shifter so my brain does not hurt. Of course ride what you want but with a 2x, my gearing will take me where I want to go. A double up front allows me closer gearing while maintaining a big range. When I was much younger, 3-4 tooth gaps were fine. Not any more as you will discover if you live long enough.
    I rode my bike for a 110 customer paper route for eight years. First on a one speed, then a five speed, then 10, and so on till now we are at 12 in the back and up to three up front. So if. You think a 1x is an upgrade, great for you. Travel Safe all!

  26. #26
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,190
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Friction and drivetrain wear, 2x does have a few advantages.

    More closely spaced gears changes is the benefit I appreciate the most.
    "These things are very fancy commuter bikes or really bad dirt bikes, but they are not mountain bikes." - J. Mac

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Train Wreck View Post
    How long before front derailleurs become obsolete?
    I haven't used one in years!

    Gear boxes will probably become more mainstream in the next few years.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,053
    There more to overall riding speed than just drivetrain efficiency especially for Mtn bikes. For the road 2x is not as bad. I can do most of my rides with a 52t front and 11-28 rear 11spd cassette. There are times however when the 36t chainring is key. Depends on the terrain and rolling hills vs extended climbs. Another thing to consider is that on road bikes there are no droppers, or remote lock outs and the left hand shifter is the brake lever. So what you are saving with respect to clutter on the bars is nothing and you don't need to save anything. Dirt is not a concern the same way it is on the trails and given the range of 11spd cassettes you can get by without shifting the front for short punchy stuff. But drop it for longer extended climbs. Plus road cassettes tend to have closer spacing since you tend to want to dial in cadence more closely. large gaps on the Mtn bike are not as big of a concern with respect to cadence.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  29. #29
    High Plains Luddite
    Reputation: Squeeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    112
    All the bikes in my garage (mine and wife's and two kids'), including my road bike, have triple chainrings.

    I guess I'll show myself to the door.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    78
    No way can you claim to be Down Country AF with a 2x setup.
    Make 1x great again. Iím Down Country AF 1x

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,605
    some people like 2x, some 1x. ride what you like and don't worry about what others use. I like 2x, so that is what I use.

  32. #32
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,883
    For me, I get 1x although I don't have have a bike with it. And I'd like to go 1x12. Ignoring the roadie, I have 1 bike that is 2x10 and a bunch with 3x (9 or 7). For me and my riding I much prefer the 3x's. For normal trail riding I just use the middle ring and the whole cassette, but still have the super lows of the granny for the super climbs or I'm knackered (or both, fitness isn't what it used to be) and still have the top end of the big ring for the road km's home. 2x I loose the top end and the bottom end, sure i can get by/not the end of the world or anything, but I still miss them quite often, you still have a front shifter/mech, cable and multi chainrings.
    But that's just my opinion, if you want less...stuff... 1x, if you want more range, 3x. 2x is nomans land inbetween.
    All the gear and no idea.

  33. #33
    No known cure
    Reputation: Vader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,955
    1989 Marin Team Marin with a 38T tandem timing ring. That was the only single speed ring back then in 110 (that I knew of). Seven speed XT cassette out back
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Friction test between 1x and 2x drivetrain - is 1x an upgrade?-ag-016.jpg  

    Ripping trails and tipping ales

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,626
    I think 1X with a floating front ring would be pretty simple to execute. Why doesn't this exist yet?
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  35. #35
    No known cure
    Reputation: Vader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,955
    Interesting. On that note, I wonder why there hasn't been a floating brake caliper since the Magura Gustav, my favorite brake ever.
    Ripping trails and tipping ales

  36. #36
    Interplanetary Poultry
    Reputation: scatterbrained's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    Interesting. On that note, I wonder why there hasn't been a floating brake caliper since the Magura Gustav, my favorite brake ever.
    Eminent Cycles uses a floating rear brake design. https://eminentcycles.com/

    Editor In Chief, "Internet Tough Guy Magazine"
    "Home of Chuck Norris' Keyboard"

  37. #37
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,448
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    No, it's 3 watts average (or 1%) assuming only the use of the 15 most efficient gears on the 2x drivetrain. That usage is not consistent with how drivetrains are used on bikes and the comparison is not indicative of MTB drivetrains either.

    When you choose, instead, the chainring that minimizes front shifting the difference will be less. Also, the primary difference is in the consistently smaller cogs of the 1x drivetrain, the 1x drivetrain in this test had a smaller "big" ring, smaller top cog, and coarser spacing. It's not clear how that translates to MTB gearing but it's clear why the results are what they are.

    Also, I do not trust the discussion because individual contributions are not quantified. All this information is already known and has been for a long time. Cross chaining is not a dominant contributor despite the article suggesting that it is. Finally, Zinn has knowingly misrepresented test data in the past. Not saying he did this time, but he has no credibility.

    Zinn is the one who pushed the whole "proportional crank" nonsense. He was so convinced that he set out to prove it through testing, but the problem was that the testing proved him to be wrong. He eventually acknowledged this yet doubled down on his proportional crank claims, withdrew all his testing, and continues to lie about it to this day since his entire business model is built on it. Just so you know who this "expert" is.
    You quoted me, but i have no idea what you're saying, other than that proportional cranks is dumb bullshit. Which is accurate.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueCheesehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,280
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I think 1X with a floating front ring would be pretty simple to execute. Why doesn't this exist yet?
    Q factor would be huge.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    You quoted me, but i have no idea what you're saying, other than that proportional cranks is dumb bullshit. Which is accurate.
    I must have misunderstood your comment then, what I was saying was their efficiency claims were based on gear usage that doesn't represent real world and reality produces lower gains. I thought you were saying the opposite but it appears you weren't.

    Regarding the cranks, a while back proportional crank claims were a thing here, along with "the longer the better". This started with Zinn AFAIK and it was proven fraudulent. People shouldn't forget that

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    Q factor would be huge.
    Well, that and the float would need to toward the inside which works against the entire reason chain line has migrated outward. Instead, they design chains that have low losses with when used in such a manner, a fact that the article seems to ignore.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    16
    I will stick to losing my "3 watts". No idea what that "feels" like because I cannot tell. Simpler maintenance works for me. YMMV

  42. #42
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    31,163
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCheesehead View Post
    Q factor would be huge.
    You are assuming the entire crankarm has to slide, it doesnít, it also doesnít need to slide the entire range, just enough for meaningful gains. Whether this is practical is debatable (tradeoff for weight).
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

Similar Threads

  1. New efficient drivetrain: -49% friction (and 13 speed)
    By detsortehul in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-09-2018, 10:09 AM
  2. 1x11 drivetrain loss of efficiency through friction
    By jacksonlui in forum Components
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 07-20-2016, 12:55 PM
  3. Test test, test test test test
    By axelbaker in forum test forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-18-2012, 09:26 PM
  4. Drivetrain friction on 2x9 29er setup - Need helps !
    By Lukipela in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 07:32 PM
  5. Reducing friction in the drivetrain
    By bluronthetrails in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-26-2004, 12:28 AM

Members who have read this thread: 156

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.