This is exactly what I ran, but it wasn’t low enough (Scottish gravel can get very steep). If I could, I would have put an old MTB crankset on the bike to get 40-24 or similar double up front, but there isn’t a GRX/road compatible front mech that will work with that. 1x12 was the saviour, as I can now just switch around chainrings of whatever size I want to move the gear range up or down (36t is my default, but I have 38, 34 and 32 rings in a drawer).
This is explicitly what I’m trying to avoid - but out of interest, what do you do with chains? Do you have one chain (length) for each chainring? I.e. when you swap from a 36 to 38 you put on the chain that is the correct length for the 38, or is the system forgiving enough to allow a few extra links?
I am not entirely sure that I read every post but why again would you like to avoid 1x? MTB gearing gives you the lowest possible gear, works a treat and is readily available from all manufacturers at all price points. 2x is great when you are riding in a bunch and need/want tighter gear jumps, for everything else 1x is simply superior. And since you already have a heavy bike, 1x is also lighter. So don’t overthink it, put a 1x on your Titan beauty and get to finally ride it!
Here’s what I stated in my original post:
”Have we all bought into changing front chainrings is a better idea than just having two that you can use whenever you want?”
Respectfully, I disagree with the statement that “…for everything else 1x is simply superior.” There is literally no set of circumstances where having fewer gears and more cross-chaining is “superior”.
1 Like
I am still not sure what you mean with changing front rings. Yes you can obviously change front ring size on 1x, which btw is another benefit of it, but most people don’t do and or need that all the time.
Fewer gears? Fewer usable gears or number of gears?
Yes of course cross chaining is happening but it’s working nonetheless, is still way smoother than cross chaining on 2x and is simply the easier system to operate. There is a reason even road Pro’s go 1x whenever the race allows. Because, yes you guessed it, it’s superior to having to deal with an obsolete front derailleur.
I really don’t mind being old school, my gravel bike has friction shifting for what it matters, but closing both eyes to modern drive train options won’t get you anywhere.
1 Like
You literally stated “I can now just switch around chainrings of whatever size I want to move the gear range up or down (36t is my default, but I have 38, 34 and 32 rings in a drawer).”
You’re now making irrelevant and erroneous points that have nothing to do with the topic I started. World Tour bike setups are as far away from what I’m talking about. Noting that 1x is used to save weight, not because, as you keep stating, “it’s superior”.
I also don’t appreciate your pointed comments about (i) what I should do (according to you) and (ii) my supposed lack of knowledge (according to you).
At this point, I’m going to opt out of any further correspondence with you on this topic.
First of all, no, that wasn’t me and secondly you have asked repeatedly ‘‘why’’ and I gave you some answers to that. In about 5 years 2x gearing will be what cable actuated shifting is today. Do I like it? No! Is it a fact, yes. At the moment you are acting like a rim brake person 10 years ago.
I was in no way offending you in the same way you already offended others in this post. You have formed your opinion already but are asking others for theirs and each time someone offers their opinion you talk them down. This is not the way we operate on here.
All the best.
1 Like
I’d say that the 4000 series is inapplicable to the OP’s criteria, but would guess Grandpa Simpson suggested it either as an oversight (there’s a lot of factors to keep track of in a thread like this) or because he had a lot of experience with it and it made him more skeptical of the manufacturing precision in the CUES range generally.
FWIW, I come away thinking CUES would be great for the OP’s use case, and also buy the value of 2x, but I also think that Mark_T is likely right about where drivetrains will go in the future. Maybe not for touring, where the “1x plus granny” approach seems perfect, but the portion of people who’d want it is a very small part of the market.
2 Likes
I also buy Grandpa Simpson’s analysis of why the market doesn’t supply many non-mullet solutions here, because unfortunately most of the market really is more aspirational, not “what would work best for me and will continue to do so a few years in the future.” It’s a great description of why the bike industry puts so much more into bikes that fit less well for the average rider who will buy them (in terms of actual fit, as well as gearing range) - because that’s what most people willing to spend want, even if it means too many spacers, or never using the drops, or pedaling too-low RPMs up climbs.
I think it’s a bummer that human nature is like this, and not just for hobbies. As much as think pieces decry the dearth of affordable cars on the market (in the U.S., at least), I have to assume this mostly reflects market demand and willingness-to-pay, so not many companies offer smaller/less-powerful/less-expensive cars.
1 Like
There’s a lot of hyperbole here, and people effectively saying that “I like it better, and since I’m always right it will be better for you too.” This is not IMHO at all helpful. I don’t buy the idea that 1x is the greatest thing since sliced bread either, SRAM marketing and trendoid bike show objets d’art notwithstanding. Yes, it has it’s good points, but then so do TT bikes, however they’re not the best choice for trail riding, or vice versa.
As for Shimano FDs (and RDs), the rated capacity is always based on the other parts in the same groupset, not on what is actually workable. FDs will invariably work okay with smaller than rated rings, and the limit is more likely to be due to the cage hitting the chainstay or difficulty in lowering the mech enough due to mount placement than anything else IME. If you have the parts on hand it’s always worth a try…
2 Likes
Two teeth chainring difference is actually only one chain link difference, so chain for 36 ring works fine for 38 and 34. 32 would need shorter chain, but that’s fine, as I can just borrow the one from my MTB which luckily has same chainstay length and deliberately the same cassette.
I also have a 10-52 cassette, which negates need for shorter chain when fitted with the 32 ring; my default cassette is 10-50t. Reality is I rarely switch rings or cassette; only do it for occasional bikepacking trips or trips away to areas of different terrain.
For me the simplicity when riding out-ways the (fairly minimal) faff of occasional component switcharoo. Totally get people going for 2x though; I was a late 1x convert, only switching my MTBs over in 2020, a good five years after most people.
3 Likes
1x is superior in some cases, but more in what else it allows. E.g:
- making suspension design simpler as pedal feedback easier to design for when the chain is pulled from a known, single, chainring size).
- Allowing left drop bar shifter to be for dropper post actuation instead of front mech
Is it superior in drivetrain efficiency? Maybe not, but there’s not that much in it.
Cross chaining in 2x can actually be worse than with 1x, unless the rider is knowledgable enough to know not to go big-big or small-small.
Meanwhile, 2x can give better gear spacing, with smaller gaps, which I certainly appreciate on my road bike, but as previously stated, if/when 1x14 comes along, 1x will be able to give the same.
I went 1x on my gravel bike in part because I got fed up having to constantly shift front rings or trim the mech to stop it rubbing. I will likely go 1x on the road bike for similar reasons, and the greater flexibility also already mentioned that 1x gives to tune where the gear range sits through chain ring size selection.
That’s my opinion and preference though, and I hope the industry keeps supporting 2x for those that prefer that.
3 Likes
I agree with the points you make for 1x, but we’re getting a long way from where I started this thread, which was for a heavily loaded gravel bike setup. Both of the points relate more to mountain bikes.
It’s possible that someone might want to run a dropper post on a rigid gravel bike, but there’s definitely not rear suspension involved (at least not in the frame).
We hold different views about what’s important and the trade-offs we’re willing to make. This probably reflects how we ride and what we want out of our bikes.
I see it as much more inconvenient to either have to change chainrings on SRAM (unless they’re worn out), or end up with the wrong gearing, than to make a 2x work and shift front rings (which I don’t find I’m doing that often). I wouldn’t want to be adjusting the trim because it’s rubbing either. This has not been an issue for me.
I agree with the analysis and your comments.
I was trying to ask is the reason that CUES is not being widely available with the configuration I’m looking at (2x11 46/32 & 11-45) because of the time constraints when it comes to releasing new models and that the earliest we’d see these are 2026 or 2027 models, or because of another reason.
I think when bikepacking.com reviewed the 43/30 Rival AXS their comment was they were hoping for a 41/28. I don’t think I’m the only person looking for this configuration.
1 Like
I’m considering CUES 2x11 with a wide-range double on multiple bikes in my future, but it’s a ways off, no rush. I suppose that market, and availability for it, will have settled out soon enough. I like the optimized-for-durability approach. Russ Roca at PathLessPedaled is pretty high on CUES as a will-likely-be-supported-for-a-long-time way to do 2x touring/gravel setups.
1 Like
Russ is leading the CUES cheer squad.
In reference to an earlier point I think you made, one of the problems with CUES is that the difference between the 4000 & 8000 is so large that it’s hard to talk about CUES and have an agreed understanding.
In some ways, I think Shimano did itself a disservice with the naming. I would prefer “CUES” = 7/8/9 (4000) and “CUES Adventure” = 10/11/12(?). Then you have compatibility within each of these two options. All you’re left with is SLX, XT, XTR, 105, Ultegra and Dura-Ace. I would kill off GRX (and possibly even SLX & 105) once CUES Adventure has an electronic option. Then Shimano could achieve massive cost reductions and be competitive across the board.
There’s probably a parallel between CUES and gravel bikes. Gravel bikes now span from endurance road bikes at one end and hardtail mountain bikes at the other.
When I mentioned adjusting trim, I was talking about the fact that the Shimano mechanical front mech and shifter have four distinct shift positions; two for each chainring to allow on the fly ‘trim’ to adjust for where you are on the block. If you are on electronic, not something you need to worry about, but on Cues you will. Off road, I found myself shifting and trimming constantly due to constant grade changes. On road that’s less of a thing. Maybe your riding terrain is different.
As for heavily loaded bikepacking, I still stand by my 1x option because I realised I freewheel even earlier on the descents when loaded up, and so was even less likely to use the high end gears of a 2x, but I can understand why people might want an ultra wide range 2x that has every gear they might need covered off (I was that person a decade ago).
Why are Shimano not shouting about wide range Cues capability, and why is it not more widely available? It’s not sexy, it’s probably quite a small potential market, and Cues exists for and is likely dominated by OEM sales. This, I agree, is a shame.
1 Like
Besides my road bikes and fixed, I spend a lot of time on tandems and a bit of time on recumbents. Both latter types need low gears for the ups and big gears for the downs. I do quite a few multi-day brevets and my wattage is down a long way after the first day (and not very impressive before that). Triple chainrings are better for those unusual cycles and doubles are ok. Single chainrings and 10t cogs are not a good idea/ durable when turned by two pairs of legs.
1 Like