Home > Bike Components > Drivetrain

Spotted: Blackwater and Marginal Gain Rethink the 1x Drivetrain

Orient Chainring
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

Blackwater Bicycles showed something pretty different at the CRAFTED Bike Show at Cane Creek. We saw it online, and now we’re wishing we’d seen it in person.

Built in collaboration with Marginal Gain of Colorado, the bike uses a drivetrain concept called Orient. The new chainring has one simple goal: keep the chain straighter across more of the cassette.

What’s the bit that everyone’s trying to improve for 1x? Chainline, and no matter how close you get it, there’s always a compromise. Wide-range 1x drivetrains ask the chain to run at some pretty ugly angles in the biggest and smallest cogs. A gnarler angle means more friction, more wear, and less efficiency. But, maybe not for long.

Orient Chainring
(Photo/Blackwater Bikes)

Orient Chainline

Blackwater and Marginal Gain built the drivetrain around a different layout meant to reduce chain articulation across the range. The idea gets more interesting as cassette counts keep climbing. Marginal Gain says the concept could support 15- or even 16-speed setups while still keeping chain angles more reasonable than many current 1x systems.

The setup was on a Blackwater Splitfire at CRAFTED. Where small builders and component makers had plenty of room to bring out the weird (and ultra practical) stuff.

marginalgains chainring 1X production
(Image/Marginalgains chainring 1X production video from Instagram)

Most drivetrain development is focused on adding another cog or making the derailleur smarter. Blackwater and Marginal Gain are looking at the problem from a different angl. Asking whether the chainline itself is what needs to change – Mind blown!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

35 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Astro_Kraken
Astro_Kraken
24 days ago

I get it but I’m still unsettled.

Billyshoo
Billyshoo
24 days ago

Super cool! I love innovation. Obviously additional weight is one consideration. Another concern – for off-road environments – is all that extra surface area to collect mud: two additional rings and one of them sitting kiddywampus smack dab in the middle to catch lots of slop.

Billy Hudgens
23 days ago
Reply to  Billyshoo

Billy with Blackwater here. Thanks for the positive comment! We have discussed with Adam from Zero Friction Cycling and he said this will actually keep the chain cleaner than current 1x options. He said current 1x systems will pry the links open when in the extreme gears, which allow dirt and grime to enter between the links, and then when you shift to the other gears, the chain traps the grit in between the links. So while there maybe more surface area on the rings to have mud and grit, the inside of the chain should be cleaner.

Another aspect of the chainring we will be testing is chain retention in mud. In Cyclocross, riders will stay in one of the middle cogs on the cassette when it is really muddy so they do not drop the chain. Orient should make the chain more secure in muddy conditions since the chainline is straighter. As far as peanut butter mud, I think a gearbox maybe the only way but it will be interesting to test.

As far as the weight, it is about 125-200 grams heavier than a regular 1x chainring. Future iterations could lighter.

Last edited 23 days ago by Billy Hudgens
Big C
Big C
24 days ago

What if they made one of the chainrings a bit smaller than the other and, in turn, increased the number of gear ratios. Now that would be a serious innovation!

Big C
Big C
24 days ago

Heck no! Front derailleurs add complexity and this is such a simple solution 😉

In all seriousness…There is something very satisfying about the design. I’m curious about what happens on the cogs that are next to the shift points: Could you shift by accident when under power? Is there more wear at these points? Could frame dynamics affect shift points (i.e. installing this on a Slingshot retro build)? At the very least, they should turn this into a screen saver.

Billy Hudgens
23 days ago
Reply to  Big C

A screen saver would be sweet! I like your thinking there! lol. We can actually fine tune when the chain enters the Helix (middle wavy chainring) but yes the frame dynamics could change that shift point depending on the length of the chainstays which would change the bend angle of the chain to enter the Helix. As far as shifting by accident, the front is always engaged so there is no shifting on the front. We have found the more power applied, the better the movement of the chain into the Helix. We are currently testing the wear on the “shift points” and may use other materials and replaceable parts in those locations if it is excessive. Stay tuned for more videos explaining it and reviews.

Billy Hudgens
23 days ago
Reply to  Big C

Billy with Blackwater here. We actually have a working 2x prototype that we posted on our instagram. We will have a similar version of it in the future that can work with 1x rear derailleurs but it is still in the early phases of development. What is impressive about it is that you never have to let off the power, it is always engaged with narrow wide teeth so when the chain moves from one gear to the other, it briefly feels like an oval chainring and then you are in the other cog. Since the chain is never disengaged, it is much more secure than a normal 2x with a front derailleur.

Uwharrie Rider
Uwharrie Rider
22 days ago
Reply to  Billy Hudgens

I would definitely be interested in something like that. What would be the maximum tooth difference between the chainrings?

Billy Hudgens
22 days ago
Reply to  Uwharrie Rider

We created one with 10 tooth difference, 42/32 but without being able to control it, it was too much of a jump in cadence. We have landed on just a 2 tooth difference right now to keep the jump from being too much, get a little more range, and make it look more “normal” which is important to cyclist. The plan is for it to fit regular frames so you could retrofit it to your current gravel bike. The true 2x version will be developed further down the timeline.

Too late
Too late
21 days ago
Reply to  Billy Hudgens

A 42/32 jump is equivalent to a 2-3 cogs change and is indeed quite big. But I would say that this is no different from a classical 2x with which you often have to change cogs at the same time you change rings.
With the Orient, this would be allowed by the kind of hysteresis involved in the chainring swaps (meaning that changing 2 or 3 cogs should not trigger a reverse chainring swap).
However, the Orient swaps are systematic and therefore occur more often. So would the needed corrections, and not under the rider’s control … Some may not like it 🙂

Last edited 21 days ago by Too late
mcDörbem
mcDörbem
22 days ago
Reply to  Big C

All modern 1x drivetrains I know of change the alignment of the derailleur with the tension of the chain. Therefore the shifting is compromised in at least one of the two settings

Jeff L
Jeff L
24 days ago

All of this because Sram could not get a front derailleur working. Also there is still a lot of cross chaining when going from small cog to big cog. If the front ring was just placed in the middle of the cassette the chain would only move laterally for 1/2 the thickness of the cassette. This solution is worse than that. And heavier and likely way more $$$

David
David
23 days ago
Reply to  Jeff L

Agreed. I would love to go back to 2×10 Shimano without a clutch! Actually, probably my favourite drivetrain other than 1×11 XTR M9000 was Deore 3×9!

Paul Oak
Paul Oak
23 days ago
Reply to  David

Neanderthals are calling with sharp stone invention 😉

BTW, the chainring in a line with half cassette position would touch the frame and tyre.

Veganpotter
Veganpotter
23 days ago
Reply to  Jeff L

People have been running 1x since before SRAM has existed. If course, this is still sorta 2x and even 3x

Ululu
Ululu
24 days ago

Pretty cool solution which doesn’t involve a motor to move the chainring but I doubt cross-chaining losses are serious enough with current 1×12/13 drivetrains to make this worthwhile.
All in all on average the chain line doesn’t look all that much better and the you now have the most severe cross-chaining in the middle of the cassette where the chain spends the most time.
Maybe the chainrings should be closer together which would also aid for tire clearance.

Joenomad
Joenomad
23 days ago

I saw it at the show and still appeared to be in the design phase and looking for an investor. Electronic shifting has solved some of the need to think about shifting between the large and small chainring and maximizing cadence and other variables.

Salane
Salane
23 days ago
Reply to  Joenomad

I’ll bet it makes that the middle part of the cassette really squirrely.

Veganpotter
Veganpotter
23 days ago

Neat but also couldn’t imagine wanting it

Jose
Jose
23 days ago

Perhaps the name Marginal Gain is what this actually means.

nooner
nooner
23 days ago

1x for life bros! Slow AF! Camp and ride slow.

Deputy Dawg
Deputy Dawg
23 days ago

And yet, my SRAM Eagle XO1 12-speed chains last far longer than my 10 or 11 speed chains did. It’s almost like the engineers did some engineering when moving to 12-speed.

blahblahblah
blahblahblah
23 days ago

nice random shift technology

Too late
Too late
23 days ago

To sum up the comments below :
3 quite large chainrings instead of one … with adverse effects on tyre clearance and Q-factor.
A triple crankset would do better in termes of chain-crossing and gearing, with a smaller, cheaper and lighter cassette. But it would need a non-automatic front derailer though …

Last edited 23 days ago by Too late
Billy Hudgens
23 days ago
Reply to  Too late

Too late, It is a normal boost MTB crank in the video. This prototype was designed around a SRAM XPLR crank so no special Q Factor required. The tires in the video is 32×2.4 so plenty of tire clearance. The frame does have an elevated chainstay so that is where it is a bit different but we are currently designing one for regular frames. The issue with any front derailleur 2x system is that geometry and tire clearance suffer with a Front Mech.

Too late
Too late
22 days ago
Reply to  Billy Hudgens

Thanks for the answer Mr Hudgens. I hadn’t noticed the elevated chain stay.
It is in fact always the best design to give room for the chainrings !
As a side note, it also gives room for big tyres while keeping the chainstays short if these are both elevated.
At least on a hard tail. I guess a rear suspension makes things more complicated …
And a front derailer would indeed take some of that room unless the chainstays are pretty long.

Jay
Jay
23 days ago

This is an interesting idea. I can’t help but think it’s a sign of the 1x idea getting towards maxed out, there’s only so much chain angle that’s ok.

Personally I’d rather have the right ratio range across fewer sprockets. 1×8 is fine, 11-48 or 11-50. Cadence to speed isn’t essential for non-racers.

Nicholas
Nicholas
23 days ago

This is an April Fools joke, right???

Larry
Larry
23 days ago

Very interesting and creative solution. But, the increase in Q factor or stance width looks like it ends up being the same or larger than 3x.

Last edited 23 days ago by Larry
Billy Hudgens
23 days ago
Reply to  Larry

Hi Larry,
In the video it is a MTB crank so the Q Factor looks wider. It actually is designed for current SRAM XPLR cranks which have a Q Factor of 150mm. Also the BB is standard as well so nothing special there.

seraph
23 days ago

Good proof of concept. Any final version will likely be more compact and polished (figuratively). Stay tuned for SRAM to release a patent showing their version that stops anyone else from making one.

Too late
Too late
22 days ago

To Mr Hudgens : correct me if my wrong but it would appear from the drawing and the video that the two main chainrings have only one teeth out of two. This would allow easier jumps between rings.
And to limit the risk of derailement, these main chainrings would be fitted with outboard guides : all around in the drawing but limited to the shift zones in the video.

And what about chainrings of different sizes ? You show such a system in another video. Was it too much asking ?

Too late
Too late
22 days ago
Reply to  Too late

I missed your post above regarding the 2x version of the Orient Mr Hudgens. I believe it answers my last question !

Chris White
22 days ago

The solution to this problem is using two chainrings. At the same time, it enables cadence jumps between gears to be eliminated and can allow for wider range than on 1x setups. Win-win-win, and by using existing technology. Personally, I don’t find any downsides to have two chainrings.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.