Home› General Training Discussions

Single Chain Ring Setup

morpheusmorpheus
in General Training Discussions

You've heard about it.  We're starting to see them at races (see Frodo's Canyon @ Oceanside).

I'm still a few years away from my next bike.  But, I'm aware that it's going to be a very different animal than what I bought to ride on now.  Electronic shifting?  Looks like it's reliable, durable, and sustainable.  Disc brakes for a tri/road bike?  Building momentum. 

But, the single large chain ring up front?  How does this affect our approach to racing?  I like the setup.  And, I'm sure that watts control is a R&D priority b/c the pro's paycheck depends on it.  So, that would suggest that it would be EN acceptable.  

Have you heard anything?  Thoughts?

Comments

  • William JenksWilliam Jenks
    I still think that it's likely to be a specialty bike because the range of gearing will have to be a compromise. For example, maybe something that a legit time trial rider would have, but less likely something that a general triathlete who has one bike but just switches out cassettes from time to time to adjust for courses would use.
  • morpheusmorpheus
    I was thinking something similar, WJ.

    I'm just guessing but I would think it would be handy to have a few different cassette options. Very hilly cassette vs rolling hills cassette vs IMFL cassette...
  • Dino SartiDino Sarti
    I have 1x11 on my mountain bike and really like it. But it's purpose built. I have it rigged for climbing. Once the road points downhill, I spin out really quickly, but it a mountain bike. So who cares. The advantage is fewer moving parts, better chain fit, not chain slap or dropped chains at all. Very important on the trail.

    On the road, it would way too limiting.
  • John WithrowJohn Withrow
    I think a 1x11 would be good for certain courses. Most 1x11 setups take a huge range of gears on the cassette. Would likely work for me for all but the hilliest courses (especially with like 42 teeth on the rear). But this wouldn't be ideal for people wanting an "all-around" bike to use anywhere/everywhere.

    FWIW, I'll be sporting a 1x11 at IM Wisconsin this yr on my fat bike... But that bike and my riding efficiency will be the antithesis of EN philosophies and approvals. It currently has a 28 tooth on the front and a 10-42 cassette... I can go as big as a 38 on the front which I'll likely switch to for the race so I don't spin out quite so quickly...
  • morpheusmorpheus
    These are good points. From what I've read, we can expect more gears on the cassette to fill in these types of gaps.

    I have to think that this may be a smoother transition than we could imagine. If we are worried about watt spikes and riding smooth with a low VI, so are the guys and gals that are racing to put food on the table.

  • morpheusmorpheus
    I know it's prematue discussion. It'll be interesting to see how it unfolds in the near future. I'm sure it's true colors will be shown by the time I buy my next bike.
  • Dave TalloDave Tallo
    I'll be experimenting with it if I get a slot later this summer. I'll likely go with the 44t race face ring, which is around fifty bucks.

    By my math, it's a negligible gain (note I didn't call it a marginal gain): aero savings equating to 1 to 1.5 watts. For the sake of simplicity, though, I quite like it.

  • Dino SartiDino Sarti
    Side note - is Withrow willing committing to let coach Rich punch him in the nuts at Wisconsin for rocking that bike? Is a nut shot like a cover change for fat bike greatness?
  • morpheusmorpheus
    @ Dave - Is that it? Aerodynamics are what's driving the idea? One leading edge of the single chain ring vs 2? I thought there might be more to it than that. If that is the case....meh. I can make up that difference in other areas.

    @ Dino - I know it was a typo, but if Rich punches him in the nuts, maybe there will be a change. We'll call him Johnnie.
  • Coach RichCoach Rich

    I've only seen a little talk on ST about going with this setup so don't know much about it. But it seems to me like a solution to a problem that's not really a problem. I can't say I've ever found myself saying, ever, "damn this small ring and 2x the gears to choose from!!!"

    However, on the list of things we spend money on in this sport, I could see someone (a strong cyclist) setting up their bike exactly how they want it for one race, and then switching it back for training, etc. IE, Florida, AZ, TX (I assume), etc. 

  • robin sarnerrobin sarner
    Awaiting wireless sram.

    And one of the others changes i would consider is 1x. Would be very clean setup.
  • novaavantnovaavant
    I use a single chain ring setup for cross but mostly because less is more in cross where things tend to break pretty quickly. The single chain ring in the front (40T) and a large range cassette in the back (11-36) gives enough range for most races. The single chain ring is good coupled with a solid wrap around chain catcher means you have less chain drops plus there is no need to shift in the front ring which in the colder races sometimes gets tricky.

    Having said that I simply don't see that advantage for road or tri. The little bit of extra weight for more gear ranges is worth it plus on most road courses I don't see myself bouncing around like in cross where I would be potentially dropping a chain beyond where a basic k-edge would save me.

    Like others have said and I agree, it would be a clean build great for a specific course, however, potentially it would have to be modified with different front/rear gear ranges to suit various terrains. This means an investment in front rings and cassettes and more wrench time in setting things up. Swapping front rings to me anyway is much greater investment in time than a rear cassette swap, especially with a Quarq. The way I see it I already have all of the gearing flexibility with two rings and just a bin full of cassettes.
Sign In or Register to comment.