>front derailleur and a second chainring are soooo heavy! we must remove them in the name of efficiency
>how are you going to climb now, you ask? don't worry, we'll just put four more sprockets on the back, three of them larger than the one you got on the front
>also fuck your chainline, buy more of these fancy expensive thin chains
Casette race is getting ridiculous. Everyone should go back to 2x9 and never stray away from that.

>>2036524 (OP)

Everyone who bought into the modern 1x meme has had it coming

>>2036524 (OP)
Recently got a 2x9, previously had 3x7.

2 of my bikes are 2x10, 1 3x9, 1 1x10. everything has a place, except this nonsense.

>>2036524 (OP)
I prefer 2x for it's versatility.
That being said there are lots of people who don't understand or can't deal with two shifters. This is essentially for those people.

I could also certainly see the applicability in MTB having a nice 1x wide range to make a XC bike. You just give up the 46t big ring that was useful on the streets or slight downhills.

1x5 greatest generation here, rest of the thread is welcome to blow me

>>2036524 (OP)
who cares just buy what you like.

>having a FD is too complex, just let the RD do all the work, cut out all this extra nonsense
>oh no, you're getting dropped chains? just get a clutch derailleur you stupid cuck!
>what, your shifting sucks now? just motorize the shifting you stupid cuck!
>what, it's still dropping chains? you obviously need a special "narrow-wide", just throw out the whole drivetrain and start over you stupid cuck!
>what, it's still dropping chains even now? just add a fake FD that doesn't do anything, you stupid, stupid cuck, you don't need a FD, this is NOT a race!!!

>>2036524 (OP)
Whats wrong with 1x and a big casette?
All my xc buddies use them and only one weirdo still uses a 2x.

>>2036560
Ah, a bait post calling 2x users weirdos.
Anyways for mtbing 1x is valid since you can get more tire clearence, and different suspension designs (or so I hear).
Still, the biggest downside is cassette cost and limiting options like not being able to run 2x or 3x, but most mtbers cope fine.

>>2036562
>Ah, a bait post calling 2x users weirdos.
Im not baiting at all.
>Still, the biggest downside is cassette cost and limiting options like not being able to run 2x or 3x
Why do you fags make it about cost all the time? Like seriously. A Shimano XT 10-51 only costs you about 100 bucks and will work for thousands of kilometers.
>Limiting options
Where? What benefits do i get from a 3x on my mtb? A modern 12 speed has more range and better clearance at the BB and is way lighter.

>>2036565
It doesn't matter. 3x gives big range and close gearing ratios, which is optimal for riding to trails or multi use.
1x is just more focused use case.
smaller 8 speed or 9 speed cassettes are 30 bucks, and sram is the crazy one with their cassette costs
We won't agree on this

My bike unironically came with 1 x 12

>>2036574
what freehub and cassette size?
That sounds like a modern bike.

>>2036575
Its a modern bike
11-44T SRAM XPLR

small chainrings give you better clearance

I went 1x11 with a 40t ring and 11-32
For anything that isn't steep trail climbing it is fine

Dinner plates are pig disgusting

>>2036565
>only costs you about 100 bucks
>only
AHAHAHA.
>Where
You can't chose the cogs on your cassete.

>>2036565
>has more range
3x7? Sure. Not so much with 3x10. And the difference between shifts is much worse.

>>2036576
That's a pretty reasonable cassette range for a gravel bike or road bike.
>>2036577
valid, but it's NBD bashing the 44th on a stump.

1x9 is nice.
With a 36T chainring I should probably have gone with a Cassette bigger than 12-36T though.

>rides a 54T front and 11-32T 8x rear
let me guess, you need more?
just pedal harder, 5head

It makes sense on a mountain bike because you need space for a dropper post lever on your bars.

I hate unracers so much it's unreal

>>2036606
I don't race. Does that make me an unracer? Why would you hate me?

This whole discussion is pure autism and cringe.
3x7/9 or whatever is ok on trekking bikes or some stupid old city bso's but not on a MTB or gravel bike.
>You have NO clearance under your BB for trail riding.
>You have unneccesary extra weight on your bike.
>Maintenace or troubleshooting on a 3x is way worse in the field.
>more parts that can fail.
>shifting multiple gears down under load is slow and shitty.

I can literally imagine how you fags look like who jerk off on your 3x grandpa drivetrains.
>>2036606
Absolutely this. People who think that the old stuff is better but turn hostile the second you point out that its slower and then they scream about that its not a race.
Why cant you guys just accept that rim brakes/3x drivetrains/ quill stems and all the other stuff is just old and inferior to modern standards?
If you like that stuff its completely ok and i respect that but stop rambling about that its better. Its not.

>>2036618
>You have NO clearance under your BB for trail riding
The limiting factor for that is the rear, not the front. Lowest you're getting on the rear is 10 (if you're limited to fairly priced components- 11), so on a gravel you're gotta want that 42 anyway. Add 40 grams of metal onto your cranks with a 22, and another whatever the shifter weighs (more but not much) and bam, you've doubled your range.
>unnecessary weight
You have unnecessary weight on your bike, with your multiple big chainwheel-sized sprockets on the rear. 2x only has 1 big chainwheel and 1 small chainwheel. These wide-range casettes are HEAVY as fuck, and they are rotating mass so they count for double.
>Maintenance or troubleshooting
>more parts that can fail
You set the front derailleur up once and it never fails. It's too simple to fail.
>shifting multiple gears down is slow and shitty
Think of 2x9 as having a 1x7 with another 1x7 strapped to it. You don't shift the front often, only when you run out of the 7 allotted gears for the chainring. If you anticipate a climb, you get off the load, calmly shift to 1-7 and get back on the load as you start climbing. When you go over the crest, you take a break on the descent while shifting to an appropriate gear. And if you just need that little bit more range but don't want to shift the front, release the limiters and use all of the rear gears, it's suboptimal but it won't hurt.
>under load
Oh baby, these new thin-sprocketed casettes shift like SHIT under load. They shift so poorly that Shammy developed an electronic groupset to try and offset that (and also get gorillions of money). And the chain, the poor chain, it weeps from all the angles it's asked to pull off, every minute of its existence it's tortured until its untimely death at 2k km.
A well-setup 9 shifts snappy and crisp, and its compact stature, a second chainring letting the chain straighten out mean more efficient pedalling and longer chain life.
>3x
3x is shit. Drop the middle ring.

>>2036618
>>2036634
>old stuff is better
Practical stuff is better. Rim brakes are shit. 3x is shit. Quill stems are shit. Adoption of hydraulic rim brakes by Walmart bikes is a blessing because now you can get a pair of MT200s for 40 bucks and they will blow any rimjobbies out of the water. A lot of modern standards are indeed good, when they are practical and compatible.
But 2x9 is where practicality has peaked, offering a wide range while being reliable, durable, inexpensive, servicable and extremely compatible, with 30 years of history (and counting- with both ESSA and chinks continuing the legacy of the glorious Shimano SIS). Anything beyond that ranges from useless to detrimental.
Less front makes sense for a flat city commuter, but that's about it.
Less front with more rear makes sense for those who want to save seconds not via their physical ability but by paying more for their bike, which, unless you are actually racing someone, is stupid.
There is a balance. And the balance for bike drivetrains is 2x9.

>>2036636
I agree, 2x9 is apex gearing.

>>2036618
>point out that its slower
It's not.

>>2036618
>bb clearence
you just bounce off the log/rock. BITD we ran high and short so that was a non issue, and as I said before we ran 2x+bash, or 1x+bash so it's fine. If low slung modern bikes have the issue so bad just run harder spring pressure or a bash
>extra weight
gold coming from 30+lb modern xc bikes
>maintenance
wrenchlet cope
>more parts that can fail
same as above
>shifting multiple gears under load
use the rear. Not under load use the front
EZ
>>2036636
rim brakes are great on the road in dry conditions
Quill stems are fine for unracers/not mountain bikers
Hydro road brakes are still fancy and expensive.

>>2036685
>Hydro road brakes are still fancy and expensive
Because Shammy wants them to be expensive. Brifters don't have packaging problems, an MT200 chopped down to just the tank and the piston would fit inside a slightly gutted one just fine.

>>2036695
It would still be expensive because of the shifter.
Tourney 7 speeds are like $150 retail

>>2036701
you can get a full ltwoo gr9 groupset with hydraulic brifters, brake calipers and a derailleur for that much lmao, shammy has no shame because they know that roadbikes are status symbols and being seen with a chink groupo is embarassing.

I have the following set ups.
>3x8 (2)
>3x7 (1)
>1x8 (1)

The 1x8 is by far the best for quick runs into town or to the pub. I use this bike the most for short runs.

The 3x's are great for off roading or for when I go to some of the hillier terrain I like to ride.

Most people live in fairly flat areas, most major towns and cities are where they are because it is flat and better suited for building.

Having said that 1x really is enough for most riders if they match your ratios with their own riding style, cadence and the terrain. And there's much to be said for simply eliminating potential points of failure from any bike, and the cost and weight savings that result.

>on large chainring
<chanline is going over main pivot, rear shock compresses under peadling
>on small chainring
<chainline is going under main pivot, rear shock extends under peadling
great

>>2036524 (OP)
Need to change something otherwise no reason not to keep your bike from 2015

>>2036618
>but not on a MTB
Agree.
>or gravel bike
No.

>>2036540
>lots of people who don't understand or can't deal with two shifters

>>2036875
most people are stupid, and if you let them be more stupid once they will never want to be less stupid from there on

>>2036789
fuck off sieg

>>2036606
rent free

>>2036875
25 percent of americans have a sub 90 iq

>>2036524 (OP)
>Front der (shifter, cable, der, rings)
Weights a ton compared to
>Large sprockets
Which are just thin aluminium rings
>Second chainring
Half the gears are duplicates
>Also
>>2036545

>>2036789
fuck off, sieg

>>2037851
cs-m970 - 221g
fd-m952 - 112g
sl-m270 - 107g,
fc-m771 - 32g
- 472g

cs-m8100
- 473g

>>2037877
also if you still want to be a faggot about it a 12s derailleur is ~80-100g heavier than a m960

>>2036524 (OP)
>/n/iggers don't know what mountain bikes are
>current year

>>2037885
I've seen road bikes with 1x already.

>>2036736
how long is that seatpost
get a bigger bike

>>2036525
this

I fell for the 1x meme on a new build and it was fucking trash. Worked great for a week and then gears at both extremes stopped working because of gunk and shit in the derailleur. Requires constant fiddling and cleaning and the ratios are retarded. Super thin chain broke after one year of commuting. Switched to 2x9 and will never look back.

>>2036618
the modern bicycle was perfected in what, the 70s? literally stop reinventing the wheel. Sometimes things get better and sometimes things are fads. 1x is a fad

1x is good for racing and downhill/enduro MTB, where you want simplicity and don't need that many gears, otherwise it seems like unnecessary simplification, especially when your simplification is paired with wireless Di2 and internally routed cables in a carbon monocoque that is torturous to work with

>>2040044
see idk i feel like if you're racing you want both a wide range and small jumps (unless it's like a flat tt) but for training or pootling around just spin a little too fast or mash a little too hard or go a little slower and save the complexity. but ymmv.

>>2036524 (OP)
the nice part about having an old bike like mine is that it is perfected
its a 3x9, large pedals just the right size for my foot, larger saddle for extra comfort, foam grips etc
personally 3x9 is better, better range with an extra front gear which allows for higher speed cruising
The only problem is that to get the perfect gear ratios you sacrifice smooth gear shifting
Personally though i like the russian roulette of shifting to a higher gear and having your casette almost explode

>>2036546
they're trying to destroy the bicycle because it's just too perfect and hinders their plans to sell ebikes etc

>>2036524 (OP)
Just reduce chainring size (yeah, i know there's issues with that).

>>2036875
>chain wears though front derailleur cage
many such cases

>chainline
I do not care
>climbing
Big ring at the rear. This is all just coping from people who have a preference and are trying to convince people that their prefered drivetrain is the best and not just something they like for subjective reasons. This is just like the disc vs rim brake argument. Both have decent stopping power when set up correctly yet disc has an edge in stopping power yet is mkre expensive. But anyway OP sucks cocks and I fucked his mom last night

>>2036524 (OP)
1x7 master race

Hill climbing on lower gears never felt that much easier for me than just hill climbing on a single gear. Hill climbing will be ass no matter what gear you're in. That's why I'm a single speed chad

>>2045603
lmao im on 48-17 and my area is very mountaineous. There is a few roads here you can not climb like that as in it is physically impossible.