{"id":16243,"date":"2018-01-16T04:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-01-16T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/2018\/01\/16\/why-the-double-chainring-wont-die-r6884\/"},"modified":"2023-02-08T06:14:13","modified_gmt":"2023-02-08T06:14:13","slug":"why-the-double-chainring-wont-die-r6884","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/why-the-double-chainring-wont-die-r6884\/","title":{"rendered":"Why the double-chainring won\u2019t die"},"content":{"rendered":"

You can fly an Eagle 1×12. Yet some remain committed to 2×11. Why?<\/p>\n

When you look at kids riding their first proper bike, you probably remember your own. And the one distinguishing feature is that we all start with a single blade mounted to that drive side crankarm.<\/p>\n

The desire for gears are real and eventually you get a cassette at the back, then an additional blade up front. When drivetrains evolved to a configuration with gears in the double-figures, very fit people started wondering if they really needed two blades up front, if they already had ten gears at the rear. Logically, if you dropped one blade and a front-mech, that saved weight, and you had some real-estate available on the handlebar to fit all manner of other functional things, such as lock-out controls, a dropper post remote \u2013 or perhaps that most underrated South African rider etiquette feature: a bell.<\/p>\n

\"ccs-62657-0-58395600-1515877168.jpg\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2010, if you walked into a bike shop, nearly all the demo bikes were running 2x drivetrains. Today, it\u2019s a world 1×11 and if you wish for the calming spread of ratios of your fondly remembered 2×10, a new 1×12 drivetrain can do that. Those who have ridden both will confirm that 1x systems are superior. Less complexity, cleaner handlebar, better side-profile bike aesthetics (yes, that is a thing for many people) and perhaps most importantly: silence and an absence of chain suck risk.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s possible to descend technical trails at speed on a 1x system with rim strain and damper action being your only accompanying acoustics. Ride a 2x system down the same trail and you keep glancing down to confirm that the drivetrain is still all of one piece, considering all the noise it generates. It\u2019s a simple \u20181x for-the-win\u2019, right?<\/p>\n

\"ccs-62657-0-98730900-1515877169.jpg\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Well, that\u2019s the contentious issue. If you are a descending biased rider, undoubtedly, but could there remain specific benefits to the 2x system for stage racers? I\u2019d observed that riders from European Alpine countries have no contrition about running 2-by and after requesting somebody much cleverer than I to test the theory in some engineering software, the results have been interesting.<\/p>\n

Although a current 1×12 drivetrain has the potential to equal a 2×11 system\u2019s spread of ratios, the inevitability is that in a climbing scenario, you\u2019ll still be using a much larger front chainring. On a dual-suspension bike, the influence of that larger chainring induces a potentially greater energy loss by not optimising the anti-squat characteristics engineered into dual-suspension bikes. The difference is small, but on a few long, gradual climbs, it is sure to compound.<\/p>\n

True, the 2x system is slightly heavier overall but on a long climb, the compound effect of its slightly greater rotational mass could be argued as less of a fatigue inducement than having a 34- or 36-tooth chainring. How? Much like an economist, I\u2019d advise you to look at the graphs.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll notice that similar climbing gear ratios deliver vastly different anti-squat percentages. Neutral anti-squat registers as 100%. The 2x system has a number greater than 100%, meaning that the influence of a rider pedalling, has a notably reduced effect on suspension movement. With the 1×12 your anti-squat number is below 100% (worse), which means you\u2019ll suffer incremental effort losses through factional suspension movement over the duration of a long climb. The reason is that a smaller ring front ring is superior during climbing, is that it operates the chainline on rotation below the chainstay pivot point, which you can see in the accompanying drawing.<\/p>\n

\"ccs-62657-0-51026700-1515877170.jpg\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cBut wait, I have a remote lock-out switch.\u201d Indeed, remote lockouts are the Blackmagic which theoretically convert dual-suspension bikes to default hardtails when required, but a meticulously designed and executed suspension system should operate without much bother in the open setting.<\/p>\n

The advent of 1x drivetrains have been a blessing for most. Quieter bikes, with less handlebar clutter, and incredible chain-on-ring security when descending technical terrain at speed. They don\u2019t suck chains in muddy conditions either. For most applications, the 1x drivetrain deserves all the acolytes we bestow upon it.<\/p>\n

Yet the continued presence of 2x systems shouldn\u2019t be that surprising in a country where paradoxically, we have very large riders, who love competing in long-distance stage races. That 1×12 system might have a theoretically amazing spread of ratios, but for some, having a smaller secondary ring up front, to boost anti-squat way beyond that neutral 100% value during an ascent, will be of greater value than the weight penalty it implies, when the long climb start escalating in gradient percentages.<\/p>\n

And when the bunch starts edging up in speed, it\u2019s a lot less fatiguing to keep up the cadence, when you have smaller incremental steps between the gears. It\u2019s why the 2x simply refuses to die.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

You can fly an Eagle 1×12. Yet some remain committed to 2×11. Why? When you look at kids riding their first proper bike, you probably remember your own. And the one distinguishing feature is that we all start with a single blade mounted to that drive side crankarm. The desire for gears are real and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":32768,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[805,806],"featured_location":[],"class_list":["post-16243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tech","tag-lance-branquinho","tag-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16243","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16243"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16243\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32768"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16243"},{"taxonomy":"featured_location","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bikehub.co.za\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/featured_location?post=16243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}