Friday News And Views

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 3:

So, to put a nice ribbon on this week's discussion about 1x and multiple chain ring drive train options, I wanted to talk a bit about cassettes. The chain line notwithstanding, there is one other issue with 1X that many don't stop to consider. 

The number of rear cogs in a cassette has steadily climbed upward since 1990 when Shimano introduced 8 speed cassettes. Nowadays, 11 and 12 cogs in a stack are not uncommon. Why? Where did the impetus  for going with more cogs come from? 

Was it to provide a wider range of gearing? No. The overall range for gearing hasn't changed significantly for any bike since that time. Then why do we have more cogs? You have to look in the mirror for the answer. it's because you are the "motor". Humans don't have a lot of power, so what we do have has to be doled out in an efficient manner. We see it in how we analyze our power output to the watt, how we interface with our machines based on that power output, and in how meticulously we set up our bikes in order to eek out the best possible power output. 

So, the move toward more cassette cogs was made to help keep our cadence in a range that is best for our power output. Ideally, in a perfect world, you would have an ideal cadence which produced the best power over a period of time and that would never vary even though you shift gears to different ratios. Therefore, the jumps between gears is critical to maintaining a high level of performance. More cogs can/should mean less change in cadence when shifting from one ratio to the next. That's why we have 11 speed drive trains. But what about 12? 

Well, that was done for 1X where all that mattered was the range of gearing. You saw it in the press releases and initial "reviews" of that system. However; you will note that without a way to shift in front, the only way to cover that range was to add an extra cog and have big jumps between gearing. In terms of jumps between gears, 1X is sub-optimal. Not only that, but the overall range might have to be adjusted up or down, as it were, and the only way to do that is with a front chain ring swap. You know.......basically manually shifting gears, only by doing it the hardest way possible. 

I just wanted to conclude this little series by once again stating that I do not "hate" 1X, nor do I wish for it to go away. It has its places. But that said, please keep it away from my gravel bike. 

 Signed Up:

Well, I alluded to something going on with me in a cryptic manner a few days ago. Now you know......I signed up for a gravel event. This time it is the ICGravel event which is being held on October 27th in River Junction, Iowa.

This will be year 2 for this event and they have two course length options of 100 miles or 100 kilometers (63 miles for you non-metric folk). I signed up for maximum punishment, of course, so I will be out for the hundy that day.

This is kind of an interesting event in that it happens at a time when you don't think about a gravel event, but doing one makes so much sense this time of the year. Yes......it could be wet, and in their inaugural year, it was, and it looked pretty sucky. But Fall riding rules if it is dry, and I like that time of year to put in big rides, so this makes sense to me. 

They have registration open, so if you'd like to join me, please do, and I bet it will be a rousing good time. No matter what the weather. I'm hoping that I will actually live up to that previous statement and really have a good time. But to do that, I have a lot of work to get going on. I need miles now, and I need to work consistently. 

Fortunately the weather has straightened out and the next ten days look great, so I look forward to getting on the right track and getting good and ready for this day on gravel in late October. 

I just might be running these tires at ICGravel

Michelin Power Gravel 40's:

Gravel this, gravel that. You can hardly keep up anymore these days. I remember when WTB was going to make the Nano 40 tubeless ready and that was the very first gravel specific tire you could get tubeless. Seems like eons ago, but it wasn't but maybe five years ago (?). Crazy. 

All that to say that if you weren't aware that Michelin had a gravel tire, well, you could easily be forgiven. Why would you know? These things pop up on a daily basis anymore. But in reality, these have been out for a while. I waited until the 40's came out as they first were out in a 35 or 38, I can't recall right now, but that wasn't what I wanted. 

So, I waited for these and we'll see how they go. Michelin tires always impressed me when I tried their 29"er tires, so I am expecting big things here. I will say that the tread pattern looks susceptible to being a "gravel flinger" type tread, but time will tell. They could be the bee's knees for all I know. Tubeless ready, of course. What tire shouldn't be tubeless ready for gravel? As far as I am concerned, all bicycle tires should be tubeless ready. At least higher end ones. 

I plan on sticking these on the Raleigh Tamland Two for the time being, but maybe they will be going on a different wheel set. This will depend upon how tight they fit. My Irwin wheels fit tires really tightly, so the Michelin may be a "no-go" there. If so, I think they will end up on my White Industries/WTB wheels. 

Stay tuned for more on the Power Gravel tires, which I purchased myself, by the way, just to be up front about that.

That's all for this week. Have a great weekend and get out and ride!

Friday News And Views

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 3:

So, to put a nice ribbon on this week's discussion about 1x and multiple chain ring drive train options, I wanted to talk a bit about cassettes. The chain line notwithstanding, there is one other issue with 1X that many don't stop to consider. 

The number of rear cogs in a cassette has steadily climbed upward since 1990 when Shimano introduced 8 speed cassettes. Nowadays, 11 and 12 cogs in a stack are not uncommon. Why? Where did the impetus  for going with more cogs come from? 

Was it to provide a wider range of gearing? No. The overall range for gearing hasn't changed significantly for any bike since that time. Then why do we have more cogs? You have to look in the mirror for the answer. it's because you are the "motor". Humans don't have a lot of power, so what we do have has to be doled out in an efficient manner. We see it in how we analyze our power output to the watt, how we interface with our machines based on that power output, and in how meticulously we set up our bikes in order to eek out the best possible power output. 

So, the move toward more cassette cogs was made to help keep our cadence in a range that is best for our power output. Ideally, in a perfect world, you would have an ideal cadence which produced the best power over a period of time and that would never vary even though you shift gears to different ratios. Therefore, the jumps between gears is critical to maintaining a high level of performance. More cogs can/should mean less change in cadence when shifting from one ratio to the next. That's why we have 11 speed drive trains. But what about 12? 

Well, that was done for 1X where all that mattered was the range of gearing. You saw it in the press releases and initial "reviews" of that system. However; you will note that without a way to shift in front, the only way to cover that range was to add an extra cog and have big jumps between gearing. In terms of jumps between gears, 1X is sub-optimal. Not only that, but the overall range might have to be adjusted up or down, as it were, and the only way to do that is with a front chain ring swap. You know.......basically manually shifting gears, only by doing it the hardest way possible. 

I just wanted to conclude this little series by once again stating that I do not "hate" 1X, nor do I wish for it to go away. It has its places. But that said, please keep it away from my gravel bike. 

 Signed Up:

Well, I alluded to something going on with me in a cryptic manner a few days ago. Now you know......I signed up for a gravel event. This time it is the ICGravel event which is being held on October 27th in River Junction, Iowa.

This will be year 2 for this event and they have two course length options of 100 miles or 100 kilometers (63 miles for you non-metric folk). I signed up for maximum punishment, of course, so I will be out for the hundy that day.

This is kind of an interesting event in that it happens at a time when you don't think about a gravel event, but doing one makes so much sense this time of the year. Yes......it could be wet, and in their inaugural year, it was, and it looked pretty sucky. But Fall riding rules if it is dry, and I like that time of year to put in big rides, so this makes sense to me. 

They have registration open, so if you'd like to join me, please do, and I bet it will be a rousing good time. No matter what the weather. I'm hoping that I will actually live up to that previous statement and really have a good time. But to do that, I have a lot of work to get going on. I need miles now, and I need to work consistently. 

Fortunately the weather has straightened out and the next ten days look great, so I look forward to getting on the right track and getting good and ready for this day on gravel in late October. 

I just might be running these tires at ICGravel

Michelin Power Gravel 40's:

Gravel this, gravel that. You can hardly keep up anymore these days. I remember when WTB was going to make the Nano 40 tubeless ready and that was the very first gravel specific tire you could get tubeless. Seems like eons ago, but it wasn't but maybe five years ago (?). Crazy. 

All that to say that if you weren't aware that Michelin had a gravel tire, well, you could easily be forgiven. Why would you know? These things pop up on a daily basis anymore. But in reality, these have been out for a while. I waited until the 40's came out as they first were out in a 35 or 38, I can't recall right now, but that wasn't what I wanted. 

So, I waited for these and we'll see how they go. Michelin tires always impressed me when I tried their 29"er tires, so I am expecting big things here. I will say that the tread pattern looks susceptible to being a "gravel flinger" type tread, but time will tell. They could be the bee's knees for all I know. Tubeless ready, of course. What tire shouldn't be tubeless ready for gravel? As far as I am concerned, all bicycle tires should be tubeless ready. At least higher end ones. 

I plan on sticking these on the Raleigh Tamland Two for the time being, but maybe they will be going on a different wheel set. This will depend upon how tight they fit. My Irwin wheels fit tires really tightly, so the Michelin may be a "no-go" there. If so, I think they will end up on my White Industries/WTB wheels. 

Stay tuned for more on the Power Gravel tires, which I purchased myself, by the way, just to be up front about that.

That's all for this week. Have a great weekend and get out and ride!

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 2

A misunderstood component of a multiple speed drive train.

Today I wanted to continue the discussion of multiple speed drive trains for bicycles, specifically derailleur based drive trains and the 1X and multiple chain ring set ups which are popular nowadays.

Misunderstandings and misconceptions mixed in with a lack of education make this area of bicycle components and usage a murky water which in turn yields lots of conclusions which are not correct. First and foremost of these misunderstandings is how the multi-front chain ring system was meant to be used versus how many folks actually use the multi-ring front derailleur set up.

The first rule to understand is that your chain should always be kept as straight as possible. There are many reasons this is advantageous, but the one you will want to focus on is that it makes the rider more efficient. I talked about this yesterday in terms of chain line, which is what it sounds like- The "line" the chain makes between the front and rear cogs. This "line" should be as straight as possible. When it gets diagonal, or "cross chained", it is time to shift to a straighter combination. Poor choices in chain line make the rider less efficient and cause higher wear on parts. In case you haven't caught on to what I am saying- this is bad. Don't do it! (Unless you have 1X, then you are stuck, sorry!)

Keith Bontrager had a great set of 4 rules for derailleur drive trains which was published in a "Dirt Rag" back in the 90's which succinctly explained the way you should use a triple front crank set, but I've not been able to dig that up. So, I am going by memory here on what it was that Mr. Bontrager was pointing out. The principles are the same whether I get it exactly as Keith put it or not. That was one of the "rules" above, by the way.

1X set ups have inherent cross chaining issues that cannot be avoided.

 The second issue people generally have a hard time wrapping their minds around is that not all the gear combinations are good, should be used, or are meant to be used at all. 

That may come as a shock to many of you, but this is something that can squarely be blamed on marketing, public perception, and lack of understanding. Derailleur drive trains with multiple front chain rings have what is termed as overlapping gears. Now, the gears do not literally overlap one another, of course, but what is meant is that the final "gain ratio" of any given combination of front sprocket and rear cog may end up being very close to, or exactly the same as, another combination found on the same system. In other words, you may have certain gear combinations that are, effectively, the same thing on your bicycle. Your 2X 11 set up may not actually have 22 , different, sequential gears. In fact- it doesn't. Thinking that you go from "1" in the front, then shift from 11 to 1 in back, then go to "2" in the front, and shift sequentially from 11-1 again is not how it works at all. 

You would be surprised to know how many folks think it is that way though. Getting your mind off of a numerical (mis)understanding of the drive train is critical to making the system work efficiently and how it was designed to work by the manufacturer. Can you cross chain your bike? Yes. Should you? Absolutely not, and many times you can find technical documents from Shimano and SRAM pointing this out. Trouble is, these documents are not often shared with the riding public, if at all. Why? Because is complicates the selling process at bicycle shops. Bicycles are very technical machines that require a high degree of skill and understanding to operate if they are equipped with multiple gear drive trains, not to mention suspension, or electronics, or the like. You simply just do not "get on and ride" these machines, although the bike industry basically says that is how it works through sales and marketing.

1X road didn't work out very well in the Pro ranks.

This is one reason why 1X appeals to many riders. It simplifies their experience. I get that. But it also introduces things that, if understood properly, may change some folks minds about eschewing multiple front chain ring set ups. On the other hand, 1X has its places- fat bikes, which when equipped with front derailleurs, just collect debris on the front derailleur mount and mechanism. Mountain bikes which feature complex suspension systems and/or short chain stays work with 1X where they wouldn't be possible with a front derailleur. 1X is great for cyclo cross and MTB due to cyclo crosser's and MTB's having to do more shifting under extreme pressure and where quick momentum changes happen. So, again- I am not advocating for 1X to go away. I actually like it on my fat bike. Not so much on a gravel bike.

Finally, for this post, I wanted to cover the point Bontrager made in his original rules for gearing which stated  that you should always use the biggest cog/chain ring combination if you have the choice, and you are not cross chaining. This is easier to figure out with a 2X system, but if you think hard enough, it can become a natural thing on a 3X crank set as well. The thinking is that a bigger cog/chain ring combo is more efficient since the power is being applied to a wider area (less wear) and the chain isn't being bent around in a tighter radius, which is less efficient. Minor, nit-picking, perhaps, but my observations agree with this. I would also add that bigger cogs/chain rings have less pressure on the shift ramps/pins/pick-up teeth enabling faster, more efficient shifting, so that would be another reason to use this philosophy.

Tomorrow I will cover why 1X may not be preferred in terms of cassettes.

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 2

A misunderstood component of a multiple speed drive train.

Today I wanted to continue the discussion of multiple speed drive trains for bicycles, specifically derailleur based drive trains and the 1X and multiple chain ring set ups which are popular nowadays.

Misunderstandings and misconceptions mixed in with a lack of education make this area of bicycle components and usage a murky water which in turn yields lots of conclusions which are not correct. First and foremost of these misunderstandings is how the multi-front chain ring system was meant to be used versus how many folks actually use the multi-ring front derailleur set up.

The first rule to understand is that your chain should always be kept as straight as possible. There are many reasons this is advantageous, but the one you will want to focus on is that it makes the rider more efficient. I talked about this yesterday in terms of chain line, which is what it sounds like- The "line" the chain makes between the front and rear cogs. This "line" should be as straight as possible. When it gets diagonal, or "cross chained", it is time to shift to a straighter combination. Poor choices in chain line make the rider less efficient and cause higher wear on parts. In case you haven't caught on to what I am saying- this is bad. Don't do it! (Unless you have 1X, then you are stuck, sorry!)

Keith Bontrager had a great set of 4 rules for derailleur drive trains which was published in a "Dirt Rag" back in the 90's which succinctly explained the way you should use a triple front crank set, but I've not been able to dig that up. So, I am going by memory here on what it was that Mr. Bontrager was pointing out. The principles are the same whether I get it exactly as Keith put it or not. That was one of the "rules" above, by the way.

1X set ups have inherent cross chaining issues that cannot be avoided.

 The second issue people generally have a hard time wrapping their minds around is that not all the gear combinations are good, should be used, or are meant to be used at all. 

That may come as a shock to many of you, but this is something that can squarely be blamed on marketing, public perception, and lack of understanding. Derailleur drive trains with multiple front chain rings have what is termed as overlapping gears. Now, the gears do not literally overlap one another, of course, but what is meant is that the final "gain ratio" of any given combination of front sprocket and rear cog may end up being very close to, or exactly the same as, another combination found on the same system. In other words, you may have certain gear combinations that are, effectively, the same thing on your bicycle. Your 2X 11 set up may not actually have 22 , different, sequential gears. In fact- it doesn't. Thinking that you go from "1" in the front, then shift from 11 to 1 in back, then go to "2" in the front, and shift sequentially from 11-1 again is not how it works at all. 

You would be surprised to know how many folks think it is that way though. Getting your mind off of a numerical (mis)understanding of the drive train is critical to making the system work efficiently and how it was designed to work by the manufacturer. Can you cross chain your bike? Yes. Should you? Absolutely not, and many times you can find technical documents from Shimano and SRAM pointing this out. Trouble is, these documents are not often shared with the riding public, if at all. Why? Because is complicates the selling process at bicycle shops. Bicycles are very technical machines that require a high degree of skill and understanding to operate if they are equipped with multiple gear drive trains, not to mention suspension, or electronics, or the like. You simply just do not "get on and ride" these machines, although the bike industry basically says that is how it works through sales and marketing.

1X road didn't work out very well in the Pro ranks.

This is one reason why 1X appeals to many riders. It simplifies their experience. I get that. But it also introduces things that, if understood properly, may change some folks minds about eschewing multiple front chain ring set ups. On the other hand, 1X has its places- fat bikes, which when equipped with front derailleurs, just collect debris on the front derailleur mount and mechanism. Mountain bikes which feature complex suspension systems and/or short chain stays work with 1X where they wouldn't be possible with a front derailleur. 1X is great for cyclo cross and MTB due to cyclo crosser's and MTB's having to do more shifting under extreme pressure and where quick momentum changes happen. So, again- I am not advocating for 1X to go away. I actually like it on my fat bike. Not so much on a gravel bike.

Finally, for this post, I wanted to cover the point Bontrager made in his original rules for gearing which stated  that you should always use the biggest cog/chain ring combination if you have the choice, and you are not cross chaining. This is easier to figure out with a 2X system, but if you think hard enough, it can become a natural thing on a 3X crank set as well. The thinking is that a bigger cog/chain ring combo is more efficient since the power is being applied to a wider area (less wear) and the chain isn't being bent around in a tighter radius, which is less efficient. Minor, nit-picking, perhaps, but my observations agree with this. I would also add that bigger cogs/chain rings have less pressure on the shift ramps/pins/pick-up teeth enabling faster, more efficient shifting, so that would be another reason to use this philosophy.

Tomorrow I will cover why 1X may not be preferred in terms of cassettes.

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 1

Shimano variable chain line patent for 1X drive trains.

The double and triple chain ring drive train set ups that many are eschewing these days are, in my opinion, misunderstood, unfairly maligned, and have benefits for certain applications that outweigh their negatives. To be sure, I have tried and use 1X set ups. So, please do not read this as a "1x's are a bad thing and should go away" post. It isn't that at all. But on the other hand, 2X and 3X have a place, and they shouldn't go away either. 

A little over a year ago now I wrote this post about some new ideas Shimano and SRAM patented which would address some inefficiencies inherent in 1X drive train set ups. That points up the fact that whenever you move to innovate in one area of bicycle design, you will in turn compromise something else. There is never any free lunch, it seems, no "win-win" situations. Something gets presented as a benefit but some other area suffers.

In my opinion, this is due mostly to the fact that in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the bicycle's mechanical properties were honed to a point where the efficiencies and mechanical properties, at least on paper, were optimized to their furthest extent. Consider the lowly chain. Nothing- not even belt driven drive trains- in real world use have been proven to be more efficient. There are many more examples of this which I could share. So, when we tweak out one area of the system, some other part suffers. We are tinkering with a device that was honed to its zenith over a 100 years ago.

SRAM's solution involves an articulating chain ring system.

So, 1X has inefficiencies having to do with chain line. The most efficient chain line is "dead straight" from one cog to another, front to back. In other words, think "single speed" chain line. Derailleurs, by their very nature, introduce an inefficiency merely by the fact that the chain line has to deflect from straight to accommodate using multiple cogs out back. The more the chain goes sideways, the less efficient the mechanism becomes. This was a compromise introduced in the early 20th Century and has reached its zenith now with 1X 12 systems and their sibling 11 and 10 speed variations.

The public perception is that "front derailleurs are bad", so marketing has asked R&D to solve the inefficiency issues with these patented ideas being shown again today on the blog. Now, I want you to consider, if you will, what this would look like: Imagine there had never been a front derailleur before. Let's say one was introduced tomorrow. I guarantee we would all be ditching 1X in a heart beat. Why? Because with a front derailleur, we could keep our chain lines more straight, and thus- more efficient use of our energy would result. But that isn't what happened.

Instead, we have forgotten that 2X and 3X drive trains require skill and understanding to operate efficiently. To be sure, we have the very best front derailleurs we've ever been able to get now days. We have the very best chain rings to allow for front shifting to happen. We have the best chains we've ever been able to get for front shifting. That doesn't matter. We still see 1X road and gravel set ups being touted as "better". 1X MTB for everyone is thought to be "better". I'm saying it isn't always better, and it is mostly due to marketing and that people don't understand multiple front ring drive trains.  

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 1

Shimano variable chain line patent for 1X drive trains.

The double and triple chain ring drive train set ups that many are eschewing these days are, in my opinion, misunderstood, unfairly maligned, and have benefits for certain applications that outweigh their negatives. To be sure, I have tried and use 1X set ups. So, please do not read this as a "1x's are a bad thing and should go away" post. It isn't that at all. But on the other hand, 2X and 3X have a place, and they shouldn't go away either. 

A little over a year ago now I wrote this post about some new ideas Shimano and SRAM patented which would address some inefficiencies inherent in 1X drive train set ups. That points up the fact that whenever you move to innovate in one area of bicycle design, you will in turn compromise something else. There is never any free lunch, it seems, no "win-win" situations. Something gets presented as a benefit but some other area suffers.

In my opinion, this is due mostly to the fact that in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the bicycle's mechanical properties were honed to a point where the efficiencies and mechanical properties, at least on paper, were optimized to their furthest extent. Consider the lowly chain. Nothing- not even belt driven drive trains- in real world use have been proven to be more efficient. There are many more examples of this which I could share. So, when we tweak out one area of the system, some other part suffers. We are tinkering with a device that was honed to its zenith over a 100 years ago.

SRAM's solution involves an articulating chain ring system.

So, 1X has inefficiencies having to do with chain line. The most efficient chain line is "dead straight" from one cog to another, front to back. In other words, think "single speed" chain line. Derailleurs, by their very nature, introduce an inefficiency merely by the fact that the chain line has to deflect from straight to accommodate using multiple cogs out back. The more the chain goes sideways, the less efficient the mechanism becomes. This was a compromise introduced in the early 20th Century and has reached its zenith now with 1X 12 systems and their sibling 11 and 10 speed variations.

The public perception is that "front derailleurs are bad", so marketing has asked R&D to solve the inefficiency issues with these patented ideas being shown again today on the blog. Now, I want you to consider, if you will, what this would look like: Imagine there had never been a front derailleur before. Let's say one was introduced tomorrow. I guarantee we would all be ditching 1X in a heart beat. Why? Because with a front derailleur, we could keep our chain lines more straight, and thus- more efficient use of our energy would result. But that isn't what happened.

Instead, we have forgotten that 2X and 3X drive trains require skill and understanding to operate efficiently. To be sure, we have the very best front derailleurs we've ever been able to get now days. We have the very best chain rings to allow for front shifting to happen. We have the best chains we've ever been able to get for front shifting. That doesn't matter. We still see 1X road and gravel set ups being touted as "better". 1X MTB for everyone is thought to be "better". I'm saying it isn't always better, and it is mostly due to marketing and that people don't understand multiple front ring drive trains.  

Different Ways Of Crankin'

Is "Super Compact" the future for adventure/gravel bikes?

I am in the midst of considering parts for my build of the forthcoming Black Mountain Cycles MCD frame and fork. So far I have wheels lined up, through axles, a head set in mind, and now I am considering crank sets and bottom brackets.

That link above takes you to the frame tech page for the MCD and there will see that the maximum chain ring configuration is 46T/36T, or a standard CX crank set ring combination. This is what Ive used most often and what I will likely do again. However; if you haven't noticed, there is a move afoot to bring radically different gearing to gravel and adventure bikes, spearheaded by FSA, who provides a LOT of OEM parts to builders.

Their idea is called "Super Compact" and it is wide range double chain ring set up. I know a lot of you think 1X is the solution, but a LOT of riders don't like it. Too big a jump between gears, for one thing, but there is more to it than that. However; I am not delving into that subject just yet.......

Super Compact gearing is kind of like what the old randonneuring gearing was like. Basically you have a "drive" gear, (outer chain ring) which you use more often. The inner ring, the "bail out gear" or "grannygear", was used on steep climbs or when there was a tough headwind or like circumstances where a low gear was desirable. The modern form of this gearing utilizes wide range rear cassettes to keep jumps between gears closer and more efficient.

I tried such a set up on the old Gen I Fargo, using a 48T outer and a 28T granny, if memory serves. Modern Super Compacts wouldn't have that much disparity between chain rings, but it is close. FSA is pushing 48T/32T or 46T/30 as options I could use. My experiences with this sort of gearing wasn't positive. Oh, it's just fine when you are in the big ring, but when you dump out to that smaller inner ring your cadence goes haywire and I, at least, lost a ton of momentum when I switched gears. As a "native single speeder", I loathe losing momentum. So, that was a big reason I bailed on that experiment with that gearing.

New Ultegra CX crank set

This is why I am seriously leaning toward going to traditional cyclo cross gearing, which is 46T/36T. I like to use an 11T-36T cassette with that gearing, and I have a few reasons why I really have gravitated toward this gearing. Of course, the minimal jump between chain rings helps preserve momentum, which you probably already guessed.

The other reason that is important to me is probably pretty weird. I admit to a bit of a "Princess and the Pea" syndrome here, so bear with me on this one. See, I have very often been riding and thought, "Dang! This gear feels awesome today!" I can feel more power and just a more efficient pedal stroke many times in certain gear combinations, and probably 99.9% of the time when I bother to check, I have a dead straight chain line.

You may think, "So what?", and I get that, but a straight chain line is the most efficient one to pedal in. This is maybe something I tuned in to from my single speed days, but cross chaining makes me feel like I am working harder, many times. Not always. But every time I feel awesome about a gear, it is a straight chain line. So, I don't like the thought of running a "drive gear" and a "bail out gear". When the chain starts climbing the cassette, I like to switch to an inner chain ring and not jack my cadence up way over 100/minute when doing so. Obviously, I also can keep the chain straighter.

Now, some of you may be thinking, "Aha! We should still be riding triple chain ring cranks!" I would partially agree with that. In fact, I set my Badger custom bike up with a triple. That said, these newer gravel bikes, by their nature, are trying to also give us the shortest chain stays, (not really that necessary) with the widest tire clearances with an eye toward 650B mtb width tires. (Again- not all that necessary) So, triple cranks are a non-starter there.

I know that I could maintain a straighter chain line with a triple, but to some degree, the narrower chain rings and cogs we run now in combination with the best materials technology cyclists have ever enjoyed make a triple crank not quite the "no-brainer" that it used to be.

I haven't gotten back to that 1X commentary yet, but I'll save it for another day. Suffice it to say that since both SRAM and Shimano have filed patents and are working on chain sets that adjust for chain line misalignment inherent in 1X set ups, you can bet that your 1X system has too many inefficiencies. Otherwise, why would they bother? 

Stay tuned.........................

Different Ways Of Crankin'

Is "Super Compact" the future for adventure/gravel bikes?

I am in the midst of considering parts for my build of the forthcoming Black Mountain Cycles MCD frame and fork. So far I have wheels lined up, through axles, a head set in mind, and now I am considering crank sets and bottom brackets.

That link above takes you to the frame tech page for the MCD and there will see that the maximum chain ring configuration is 46T/36T, or a standard CX crank set ring combination. This is what Ive used most often and what I will likely do again. However; if you haven't noticed, there is a move afoot to bring radically different gearing to gravel and adventure bikes, spearheaded by FSA, who provides a LOT of OEM parts to builders.

Their idea is called "Super Compact" and it is wide range double chain ring set up. I know a lot of you think 1X is the solution, but a LOT of riders don't like it. Too big a jump between gears, for one thing, but there is more to it than that. However; I am not delving into that subject just yet.......

Super Compact gearing is kind of like what the old randonneuring gearing was like. Basically you have a "drive" gear, (outer chain ring) which you use more often. The inner ring, the "bail out gear" or "grannygear", was used on steep climbs or when there was a tough headwind or like circumstances where a low gear was desirable. The modern form of this gearing utilizes wide range rear cassettes to keep jumps between gears closer and more efficient.

I tried such a set up on the old Gen I Fargo, using a 48T outer and a 28T granny, if memory serves. Modern Super Compacts wouldn't have that much disparity between chain rings, but it is close. FSA is pushing 48T/32T or 46T/30 as options I could use. My experiences with this sort of gearing wasn't positive. Oh, it's just fine when you are in the big ring, but when you dump out to that smaller inner ring your cadence goes haywire and I, at least, lost a ton of momentum when I switched gears. As a "native single speeder", I loathe losing momentum. So, that was a big reason I bailed on that experiment with that gearing.

New Ultegra CX crank set

This is why I am seriously leaning toward going to traditional cyclo cross gearing, which is 46T/36T. I like to use an 11T-36T cassette with that gearing, and I have a few reasons why I really have gravitated toward this gearing. Of course, the minimal jump between chain rings helps preserve momentum, which you probably already guessed.

The other reason that is important to me is probably pretty weird. I admit to a bit of a "Princess and the Pea" syndrome here, so bear with me on this one. See, I have very often been riding and thought, "Dang! This gear feels awesome today!" I can feel more power and just a more efficient pedal stroke many times in certain gear combinations, and probably 99.9% of the time when I bother to check, I have a dead straight chain line.

You may think, "So what?", and I get that, but a straight chain line is the most efficient one to pedal in. This is maybe something I tuned in to from my single speed days, but cross chaining makes me feel like I am working harder, many times. Not always. But every time I feel awesome about a gear, it is a straight chain line. So, I don't like the thought of running a "drive gear" and a "bail out gear". When the chain starts climbing the cassette, I like to switch to an inner chain ring and not jack my cadence up way over 100/minute when doing so. Obviously, I also can keep the chain straighter.

Now, some of you may be thinking, "Aha! We should still be riding triple chain ring cranks!" I would partially agree with that. In fact, I set my Badger custom bike up with a triple. That said, these newer gravel bikes, by their nature, are trying to also give us the shortest chain stays, (not really that necessary) with the widest tire clearances with an eye toward 650B mtb width tires. (Again- not all that necessary) So, triple cranks are a non-starter there.

I know that I could maintain a straighter chain line with a triple, but to some degree, the narrower chain rings and cogs we run now in combination with the best materials technology cyclists have ever enjoyed make a triple crank not quite the "no-brainer" that it used to be.

I haven't gotten back to that 1X commentary yet, but I'll save it for another day. Suffice it to say that since both SRAM and Shimano have filed patents and are working on chain sets that adjust for chain line misalignment inherent in 1X set ups, you can bet that your 1X system has too many inefficiencies. Otherwise, why would they bother? 

Stay tuned.........................

SRAM Goes Egg Shaped

No, you aren't seeing things- It is a SRAM 38T ovalized 1X ring

The "little guys" must have finally gotten to SRAM. Saturday I saw where the component giant is now offering ovalized, direct mount chain wheels for 1X usage.

This category was something smaller companies were doing business in and were making some inroads, apparently, in to aftermarket sales such that SRAM finally did something about it. SRAM, who vehemently defend 1X chain tooth patents, actually pushed out a couple OE suppliers and now have their own offering to OE manufacturers and the aftermarket. These rings will cost approximately $140.00 each (Based off what I saw they sell for in Euros) and are going to be available in  32T, 34T, 36T, and a monster sized 38T.

I imagine that the 38T one, and for some folks, the 36T, will be seen mostly on the 1X road stuff SRAM is sure to be putting out for gravel/adventure rigs. I also suspect that these will be paired, along with traditional round rings, with the obvious e-Tap for mountain biking, which is sure to be in the pipeline.

I'm still not a big fan of the 1X deal, but I did try ovalized rings, and I felt that there was something to it all. In my opinion, Rotor really has the concept down correctly because the way the ovalization works is adaptable to you and your fitness. These are not adaptable as they go on in one position only.

I'm seeing that these ovalized black, toothy devils are out for anyone to buy now, so there ya go.

SRAM Goes Egg Shaped

No, you aren't seeing things- It is a SRAM 38T ovalized 1X ring

The "little guys" must have finally gotten to SRAM. Saturday I saw where the component giant is now offering ovalized, direct mount chain wheels for 1X usage.

This category was something smaller companies were doing business in and were making some inroads, apparently, in to aftermarket sales such that SRAM finally did something about it. SRAM, who vehemently defend 1X chain tooth patents, actually pushed out a couple OE suppliers and now have their own offering to OE manufacturers and the aftermarket. These rings will cost approximately $140.00 each (Based off what I saw they sell for in Euros) and are going to be available in  32T, 34T, 36T, and a monster sized 38T.

I imagine that the 38T one, and for some folks, the 36T, will be seen mostly on the 1X road stuff SRAM is sure to be putting out for gravel/adventure rigs. I also suspect that these will be paired, along with traditional round rings, with the obvious e-Tap for mountain biking, which is sure to be in the pipeline.

I'm still not a big fan of the 1X deal, but I did try ovalized rings, and I felt that there was something to it all. In my opinion, Rotor really has the concept down correctly because the way the ovalization works is adaptable to you and your fitness. These are not adaptable as they go on in one position only.

I'm seeing that these ovalized black, toothy devils are out for anyone to buy now, so there ya go.

Simplified Drive Trains Complicated By Proposed New Developments

Getting rid of that front derailleur and adding wide range cassettes has its pitfalls.

Just the other day I mentioned in a post about how I wasn't necessarily a fan of the 1X drive train craze sweeping the mountain bike world of late. I do really like the idea for fat bikes, but there are issues when you try to make the chain do the physical gymnastics required of it to make a 1X drive train work. Especially if you want a wide range of gears.

Riders are finding this out now. New 2017 bikes with different lower end spec have been plagued by issues such as dropped chains, chains that derail when pedaled backward, and by noises and excessive wear. SRAM and Shimano have responded by making further tweaks to tooth profiles on chain rings and cassette cogs to allow chains to engage and release the teeth more efficiently, especially when coming off those big, 42T-50T rear cogs.

Basically, what has happened is that we've removed our front shifting issues and found them again on the back end.

Think about it- Big chain rings up front didn't want to release the chain or pick it up easily because there was so much more chain to teeth contact by virtue of the chain ring sizes. Now those sized cogs and bigger are found out back on many mountain bikes and the chain release issues have cropped up again.

This Shimano patent applied for design shows an axially movable chain line. Courtesy of Cycling Industry News.

Now Shimano and SRAM are applying for patents to address this issue. The ideas are different, but the results sought for are the same. Shimano suggests a bottom bracket spindle that telescopes in and out to straighten chain line, which would make the drive train more efficient and discourage chain drop. This solution does what we used to do with our triple chain rings and front derailleurs- straighten our chain lines out. Obviously it would make sense that Shimano would require the bottom bracket to telescope in a way somehow synchronized to the shifter. Di2 would make sense here.

It complicates the bottom bracket, for sure, and it puts a mechanism in a place where moisture could wreak havoc on the device. However; if anyone can engineer this to work right, I would place my bets on Shimano. Still, I am not convinced something this complex can survive the rigors of mountain biking. But we may or may not see............

SRAM's solution also alters the chain line but does it by a floating chain ring mount. Image courtesy of Cycling Industry News

 SRAM seems to have taken a different approach which seems to involve canting the chain ring in the direction of how the chain wants to flow back toward the cassette, depending upon the gear chosen. This option seems to not be tied directly to how the shifter operates and would appear to be simpler and effective. However, any time I've seen any chain ring allowed to move, (granted, it wasn't designed to move), it is not a good thing. This solution leaves me with a lot of questions and concerns. Also, the SRAM solution requires a special chain ring carrier, which would suggest that it only would work with removable spider designed cranks, perhaps. More places for creaks to happen, in my opinion, here with this design.

But what really strikes me here, and actually made me laugh out loud when I first saw this, was how all this getting rid of the front derailleur was going to simplify our drive trains. 

Apparently "simple" isn't working out as well as they hoped it would! But making it more complicated is the answer? I don't see this working out well...........

Simplified Drive Trains Complicated By Proposed New Developments

Getting rid of that front derailleur and adding wide range cassettes has its pitfalls.

Just the other day I mentioned in a post about how I wasn't necessarily a fan of the 1X drive train craze sweeping the mountain bike world of late. I do really like the idea for fat bikes, but there are issues when you try to make the chain do the physical gymnastics required of it to make a 1X drive train work. Especially if you want a wide range of gears.

Riders are finding this out now. New 2017 bikes with different lower end spec have been plagued by issues such as dropped chains, chains that derail when pedaled backward, and by noises and excessive wear. SRAM and Shimano have responded by making further tweaks to tooth profiles on chain rings and cassette cogs to allow chains to engage and release the teeth more efficiently, especially when coming off those big, 42T-50T rear cogs.

Basically, what has happened is that we've removed our front shifting issues and found them again on the back end.

Think about it- Big chain rings up front didn't want to release the chain or pick it up easily because there was so much more chain to teeth contact by virtue of the chain ring sizes. Now those sized cogs and bigger are found out back on many mountain bikes and the chain release issues have cropped up again.

This Shimano patent applied for design shows an axially movable chain line. Courtesy of Cycling Industry News.

Now Shimano and SRAM are applying for patents to address this issue. The ideas are different, but the results sought for are the same. Shimano suggests a bottom bracket spindle that telescopes in and out to straighten chain line, which would make the drive train more efficient and discourage chain drop. This solution does what we used to do with our triple chain rings and front derailleurs- straighten our chain lines out. Obviously it would make sense that Shimano would require the bottom bracket to telescope in a way somehow synchronized to the shifter. Di2 would make sense here.

It complicates the bottom bracket, for sure, and it puts a mechanism in a place where moisture could wreak havoc on the device. However; if anyone can engineer this to work right, I would place my bets on Shimano. Still, I am not convinced something this complex can survive the rigors of mountain biking. But we may or may not see............

SRAM's solution also alters the chain line but does it by a floating chain ring mount. Image courtesy of Cycling Industry News

 SRAM seems to have taken a different approach which seems to involve canting the chain ring in the direction of how the chain wants to flow back toward the cassette, depending upon the gear chosen. This option seems to not be tied directly to how the shifter operates and would appear to be simpler and effective. However, any time I've seen any chain ring allowed to move, (granted, it wasn't designed to move), it is not a good thing. This solution leaves me with a lot of questions and concerns. Also, the SRAM solution requires a special chain ring carrier, which would suggest that it only would work with removable spider designed cranks, perhaps. More places for creaks to happen, in my opinion, here with this design.

But what really strikes me here, and actually made me laugh out loud when I first saw this, was how all this getting rid of the front derailleur was going to simplify our drive trains. 

Apparently "simple" isn't working out as well as they hoped it would! But making it more complicated is the answer? I don't see this working out well...........

Bikes Of 2016: Titanium Mukluk

Here shown in the tweaking stages before the "Fat Bike Century" ride.

The time of year has come that I will be reviewing the bikes I used the most throughout 2016 and why. The ups, downs, changes, and more will be discussed.

Another stalwart of the stable here. The Ti Mukluk, which I got at the end of 2011. There were a couple of notable things regarding this bike and 2016.

The first was doing a century ride on gravel with this bike. I have to be honest, I wasn't sure I could pull off 100 plus miles on this bike without severe pain or without doing some long term damage. Yes.....I had ridden it on a metric century before. I knew I could go that far, but things happen in that last 37 plus miles that make the previous 63 seem like a cakewalk sometimes. Well, that and a 100mm wide bottom bracket, a "too low" gear range, and my iffy shoulder were also reasons for some second thoughts.

But I pulled it off with no real serious side effects.

The second thing was that "too low gear range". That was a result of the switch to a 1 X 11 drive train. Which is working splendidly in snowy conditions, by the way. I've got "low enough" and one in reserve, so that is a good thing. I do need to adjust the cable a tiny bit, but otherwise, no issues whatsoever with this drive train. I can even pedal backward, which, from what I hear is a big issue with a lot of folk's 1X drive trains.

I know I ran this image a couple of days ago- Current state of the Ti Muk.

I have the Ti Muk "winterized" now, and who knows what configuration I will run it in in the future. I have plans to get Jones Bars at some point for this rig given the successful run with Jones Bars on my Blackborow. I have a "Summer" 29'er wheel set that I want to modify with new rims. Maybe I'll do something stupid and ride another century on fat tires again. If I do, this will be the bike I do that on.

Bikes Of 2016: Titanium Mukluk

Here shown in the tweaking stages before the "Fat Bike Century" ride.

The time of year has come that I will be reviewing the bikes I used the most throughout 2016 and why. The ups, downs, changes, and more will be discussed.

Another stalwart of the stable here. The Ti Mukluk, which I got at the end of 2011. There were a couple of notable things regarding this bike and 2016.

The first was doing a century ride on gravel with this bike. I have to be honest, I wasn't sure I could pull off 100 plus miles on this bike without severe pain or without doing some long term damage. Yes.....I had ridden it on a metric century before. I knew I could go that far, but things happen in that last 37 plus miles that make the previous 63 seem like a cakewalk sometimes. Well, that and a 100mm wide bottom bracket, a "too low" gear range, and my iffy shoulder were also reasons for some second thoughts.

But I pulled it off with no real serious side effects.

The second thing was that "too low gear range". That was a result of the switch to a 1 X 11 drive train. Which is working splendidly in snowy conditions, by the way. I've got "low enough" and one in reserve, so that is a good thing. I do need to adjust the cable a tiny bit, but otherwise, no issues whatsoever with this drive train. I can even pedal backward, which, from what I hear is a big issue with a lot of folk's 1X drive trains.

I know I ran this image a couple of days ago- Current state of the Ti Muk.

I have the Ti Muk "winterized" now, and who knows what configuration I will run it in in the future. I have plans to get Jones Bars at some point for this rig given the successful run with Jones Bars on my Blackborow. I have a "Summer" 29'er wheel set that I want to modify with new rims. Maybe I'll do something stupid and ride another century on fat tires again. If I do, this will be the bike I do that on.

Friday News And Views

The hard tail mtb has changed radically in the past 5 years.

The Four Biggest Innovations In Mountain Bike Hard Tails In The Last Five Years:

 The other day I was chatting with a customer and the idea of what has been the most influential changes in mountain bikes came up. I heard that some magazine or site had their ideas of what that might be. I figured I would jot down my thoughts without looking this article up and being influenced by........ well, there could be some interesting things written right here, but I'll let that go.

Here in no particular order are my thoughts on the four major changes that are the most influential in regard to hard tail mtb's over the last five years.

• 29+ Wheels: Before there was B+/27.5+ there was 29+. The idea took what we had just learned about 29"er wheels and super-sized it. Kind of like when you go to the golden arches of doom for lunch, super sizing the wheels just seemed so right. Dealing with the after-effects would be dealt with later. And......dealing with it happened sooner than later. 
• Trail Geometry or Slack, Long, and Low: Borrowed from the evolution of downhill bikes, the newer school of geometry dictated that head tube angles get really slack. Oddly enough, the original "mtb" bikes of the 70's, the Schwinn "balooners", had real slack front ends and short stems, which informed the first purpose built mtb's later. Somehow along the way mountain bikes lost their way, but now it would appear that it all has come full circle. Well, with a technological icing on the cake, so to speak. The real innovation in geometry could not happen without a drive train change. Downhillers had shed front derailleurs long before which freed up real estate to make rear suspension better. This would later be used to make the rear ends on hard tails shorter. Bottom brackets went lower as well. Which meant hard tail mtb's needed something. Of course, we needed......
• 1X Drive Trains: So, this elimination of the front derailleur allowed for that shorter rear end and lowered bottom bracket. It also, ironically, spurred the development of front derailleurs and ways to mount them that allowed for 2X systems to also be viable choices along with the shorter rear ends. But for the most part this 1X deal has opened the doors to all kinds of nuttiness. Like the elevated drive side chain stay on the Stache, shown here. 
• Wider Rims & Wider Tires: So the final piece of the puzzle is the wider rims and tires. Not a little wider, but radically wider. If you had told me five or six years ago that many people would be riding on 50mm wide rims I would have thought that was a crazy idea, but here we are. Trail bikes with 3" wide tires on 45mm-60mm rims are commonplace. The increase in traction and stability has redefined what a hard tail can do these days. 

So, all of that has informed the rise of 27.5+ and all the "trail hard tail" bikes that have become as common as single speed 29"ers were ten years ago. All this "Plus" nonsense and fat bikes stuff along side of it has been radicalizing mtb hard tail definitions for the last five years to the point that the playing field is a crazy mash-up of all kinds of goofy choices. And where will we go from here?

In ten years, it will again be a different playing field. Think that is crazy? Well, consider how many choices there are for single speed hard tail 29"ers these days.

Yeah.........

Snow Dog Update:

So, the good news is that I am a couple of cables and housings away from getting the Snow Dog back to life again. The bad news is that I keep forgetting about that. Yeah........

Bad me!

So, if I can manage to get my memory to work, I should get the Snow Dog built out and ready for next week's commuting duties. There was a surprise finding when I fished out the frame from its hiding place, which changed the direction of the build, and I have already made some plans for minor changes to be made. But first, I should get this thing up and running so any changes being considered will be worthwhile to pursue.

So, bottom line? Don't forget the cables and housings! 

I should have a report next week after the resurrection of this beast happens.

Trouble in 1X Land?

  Derailing Without A Derailleur:

 It appears that many stock Salsa 2017 1X bikes and some other 1X rigs coming out now have the preponderance for derailing their chains off the chain ring when pedaled backwards. This all without the aid of a derailleur. What?

Is this some new voodoo? No.....it is some kind of mechanical/physical principle though. I've seen some really short-stayed road bikes do this when cross chained as well.

While I haven't seen any issues come through my repair stand or on my personal 1X set ups, I get why there could be issues. Remember, we are relying on a friction based, wide/narrow chain ring tooth profile to retain the chain. There also is another factor at work- tension. That is supplied by the rear derailleur these days and is maintained, or maybe "governed" is a better word, by the friction based "clutch" rear derailleurs. Tension is also created by pedal pressure. However; when you pedal backward, the dynamics of tension are changed.

Unless the chain line is perfectly straight, this chain derailment issue could easily happen if the chain ring teeth profiles are not completely spot on. Because that is the only thing retaining a 1X chain when pedaling backward, for the most part. Now, again- I haven't seen the issues I've seen detailed online, but it does stand to reason that this would be the case. Without a front derailleur, even multiple chain ring set ups will exhibit this issue when pedaling backwards. It wouldn't surprise me that unless you are using an X-Sync spec tooth profile ring, you could be experiencing this issue, and maybe even then you might be. But like I say- I haven't had this issue, so it could be something else entirely.

Stay tuned on that front.......

Okay, we're headed for a major deep freeze here. Negative 20 on Saturday night. Hopefully y'all are somewhere warmer and out riding. Have a great weekend! 

Friday News And Views

The hard tail mtb has changed radically in the past 5 years.

The Four Biggest Innovations In Mountain Bike Hard Tails In The Last Five Years:

 The other day I was chatting with a customer and the idea of what has been the most influential changes in mountain bikes came up. I heard that some magazine or site had their ideas of what that might be. I figured I would jot down my thoughts without looking this article up and being influenced by........ well, there could be some interesting things written right here, but I'll let that go.

Here in no particular order are my thoughts on the four major changes that are the most influential in regard to hard tail mtb's over the last five years.

• 29+ Wheels: Before there was B+/27.5+ there was 29+. The idea took what we had just learned about 29"er wheels and super-sized it. Kind of like when you go to the golden arches of doom for lunch, super sizing the wheels just seemed so right. Dealing with the after-effects would be dealt with later. And......dealing with it happened sooner than later. 
• Trail Geometry or Slack, Long, and Low: Borrowed from the evolution of downhill bikes, the newer school of geometry dictated that head tube angles get really slack. Oddly enough, the original "mtb" bikes of the 70's, the Schwinn "balooners", had real slack front ends and short stems, which informed the first purpose built mtb's later. Somehow along the way mountain bikes lost their way, but now it would appear that it all has come full circle. Well, with a technological icing on the cake, so to speak. The real innovation in geometry could not happen without a drive train change. Downhillers had shed front derailleurs long before which freed up real estate to make rear suspension better. This would later be used to make the rear ends on hard tails shorter. Bottom brackets went lower as well. Which meant hard tail mtb's needed something. Of course, we needed......
• 1X Drive Trains: So, this elimination of the front derailleur allowed for that shorter rear end and lowered bottom bracket. It also, ironically, spurred the development of front derailleurs and ways to mount them that allowed for 2X systems to also be viable choices along with the shorter rear ends. But for the most part this 1X deal has opened the doors to all kinds of nuttiness. Like the elevated drive side chain stay on the Stache, shown here. 
• Wider Rims & Wider Tires: So the final piece of the puzzle is the wider rims and tires. Not a little wider, but radically wider. If you had told me five or six years ago that many people would be riding on 50mm wide rims I would have thought that was a crazy idea, but here we are. Trail bikes with 3" wide tires on 45mm-60mm rims are commonplace. The increase in traction and stability has redefined what a hard tail can do these days. 

So, all of that has informed the rise of 27.5+ and all the "trail hard tail" bikes that have become as common as single speed 29"ers were ten years ago. All this "Plus" nonsense and fat bikes stuff along side of it has been radicalizing mtb hard tail definitions for the last five years to the point that the playing field is a crazy mash-up of all kinds of goofy choices. And where will we go from here?

In ten years, it will again be a different playing field. Think that is crazy? Well, consider how many choices there are for single speed hard tail 29"ers these days.

Yeah.........

Snow Dog Update:

So, the good news is that I am a couple of cables and housings away from getting the Snow Dog back to life again. The bad news is that I keep forgetting about that. Yeah........

Bad me!

So, if I can manage to get my memory to work, I should get the Snow Dog built out and ready for next week's commuting duties. There was a surprise finding when I fished out the frame from its hiding place, which changed the direction of the build, and I have already made some plans for minor changes to be made. But first, I should get this thing up and running so any changes being considered will be worthwhile to pursue.

So, bottom line? Don't forget the cables and housings! 

I should have a report next week after the resurrection of this beast happens.

Trouble in 1X Land?

  Derailing Without A Derailleur:

 It appears that many stock Salsa 2017 1X bikes and some other 1X rigs coming out now have the preponderance for derailing their chains off the chain ring when pedaled backwards. This all without the aid of a derailleur. What?

Is this some new voodoo? No.....it is some kind of mechanical/physical principle though. I've seen some really short-stayed road bikes do this when cross chained as well.

While I haven't seen any issues come through my repair stand or on my personal 1X set ups, I get why there could be issues. Remember, we are relying on a friction based, wide/narrow chain ring tooth profile to retain the chain. There also is another factor at work- tension. That is supplied by the rear derailleur these days and is maintained, or maybe "governed" is a better word, by the friction based "clutch" rear derailleurs. Tension is also created by pedal pressure. However; when you pedal backward, the dynamics of tension are changed.

Unless the chain line is perfectly straight, this chain derailment issue could easily happen if the chain ring teeth profiles are not completely spot on. Because that is the only thing retaining a 1X chain when pedaling backward, for the most part. Now, again- I haven't seen the issues I've seen detailed online, but it does stand to reason that this would be the case. Without a front derailleur, even multiple chain ring set ups will exhibit this issue when pedaling backwards. It wouldn't surprise me that unless you are using an X-Sync spec tooth profile ring, you could be experiencing this issue, and maybe even then you might be. But like I say- I haven't had this issue, so it could be something else entirely.

Stay tuned on that front.......

Okay, we're headed for a major deep freeze here. Negative 20 on Saturday night. Hopefully y'all are somewhere warmer and out riding. Have a great weekend!