You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Isn’t the advantage of that design that the rear wheel isn’t dished at all?
I believe that was the thinking behind DH hubs. 32 equally tensioned spokes are always going to be stronger than 16 highly tensioned spokes and 16 that are there to stop the wheel flopping over, no matter how wide you make the triangulation.
I thought boost, at least on the rear, was driven by the need for more space in the bb area given the trend to bigger diameter wider tyres, particularly with fs bikes and carbon construction, and notwithstanding the ditching of the front mech? The chainline change then required something be done at the rear to meet shifting standards.
Internal headset cable routing and/or PF BB would (and have done) stop me buying that particular model.
Why on earth did anyone think routing cables thru the headset was a good idea?!
Why on earth did anyone think routing cables thru the headset was a good idea?!
Because it looks good on Instagram.
Because it looks good on Instagram
Depressingly that is a remarkably valid reason of you're actually selling anything these days.
All this talk of boost being needed for wheel strength and clearance
I still can't understand why my (142mm) Pipedream Sirius fits a 29 x 2.6" in the rear with ~435mm chainstays
Nor why a lot of DT Swiss 29er Enduro rims and even Mavic Deemax 29er DH wheels are only 28 spoke
In response to the OP, I don't think this makes boost worse, just unnecessary (I'm sure it's marginally better)
The answer is that the great mountain bike buying public will quite happily buy a bike that has no compatibility with what they have already, so long as it looks like what they have already.
Totally agree, this is the depressing thing
(Even worse when a similar attitude dictates politics)
It's funny how the arguments against, say, internal gear hubs, include the simply impermissable addition of rear axle weight, yet there seems to be (almost?) no one complaining that Sram electronic mechs have added ~200g over the cable versions (nearly the weight of DT 350 rear hub!)
It’s funny how the arguments against, say, internal gear hubs, include the simply impermissable addition of rear axle weight
I think the main argument against them is how much lighter they make your wallet. Racers won't use them because they are less efficient. The rear axle weight is just another disadvantage, not the main one.
My thinking is more that if you have changed the cassette standard and you are now thinking about changing the axle spacing and brake mounting, does there not come a point where you would logically say, 'Well, since we're changing everything anyway, why don't we do it properly and move the dangly bit next to the main pivot.'
There is no logical reason not to and the development wouldn't be anymore fraught than say, Sram's new direct mount.
The issue is that it would no longer look like what people know. And so people wouldn't buy it.
They would have apparently legitimate concerns about 'compatibility' but that ignores the fact that everything on their new bike is a new and incompatible standard anyway.
does there not come a point where you would logically say, ‘Well, since we’re changing everything anyway, why don’t we do it properly and move the dangly bit next to the main pivot.’
That's what Shimano did with the B-link derailleurs, the pivot is moved to a more optimal position. Derailleurs have to be placed under the cassette because they need to guide the chain onto the correct sprocket. Of course, you could just run a singlespeed hub and multiple rings on the front, but you won't be able to fit 12 chainrings in there and the shifting will never be as good as a rear derailler, plus you'd still need a tensioner under the chainstay. The only practical place to put the derailleur is where it is now.
Gearboxes (whether they are in the rear hub or frame mounted) will always be more expensive to manufacture than a derailleur system and will have more friction.
Yeah, Honda tried fitting a cassette and mech at the front and didn't really get anywhere with it.
I think the main argument against them is how much lighter they make your wallet.
Upfront costs are high, but cheaper than a lot of derailleur systems over their lifetime. And given that even a GX mech is £400 even the upfront cost differences are rapidly shrinking.
given that even a GX mech is £400 even the upfront cost differences are rapidly shrinking.
You're comparing an elite level derailleur system with a gearbox. Even a Deore level derailleur is relatively high-end, many more bikes ship with Tourney or Altus level gear than Deore, let alone XT and XTR.
Shimano Tourney FT35 7 Speed Rear Derailleur RRP £12.99 £3.49
Shimano Altus M2000 9 Speed Rear Derailleur RRP £33.99 £14.99
Shimano Deore M4120 Shadow MTB Rear Derailleur RRP £41.99 £30.99
SRAM GX Type 2.1 10sp Rear Derailleur RRP £71.00 £49.99 - £55.00
The only practical place to put the derailleur is where it is now.
Tell that to Lal, Williams Racing Products, and Honda.
None of which are commercially successful but as I said, mountain bikers ain't going to buy anything that doesn't look like a mountain bike.
None of which are commercially successful
Those are niche products. They aren't commercially successful because they are extremely expensive and not intended to be mass-market products. Yes, you can make a frame mounted gearbox with a derailleur inside, but it will be much more expensive than a regular derailleur system.
They aren’t commercially successful because they are extremely expensive and not intended to be mass-market products. Yes, you can make a frame mounted gearbox with a derailleur inside, but it will be much more expensive than a regular derailleur system.
Yes, but it wouldn't expensive be if Trek, Spesh, or Giant did it. Because it would benefit from the same economies of scale as the current derailleur set up does.
But they won't. Because they wouldn't sell. Because mountain bikers don't buy mountain bikes that don't look basically the same as what they already have even if it shares no standards with what they already have.
My shifter, cassette, cassette, chain and chainring were under £100 in total, and I haven’t touched them since fitting them three years ago (apart from the occasional clean). Getting a gearbox down to that price while keeping that kind of durability is a big ask. It’s not about “looking like a mountain bike”, people would lap up bikes fitted with a realistically priced, efficient, proven and easily maintained gearbox… the barrier isn’t “fashion”.
Where fashion does come into is “number of speeds” where “one more” is always the aim. We just need range for messing about off road. Hopefully this will change and other considerations come back to the fore in future. Will people see “13” as jumping the shark? Arguably many of the current “standards” only came about to allow for another cog or two, would another round of non backwards compatible standards changes for 13 speed be rejected by riders?
My shifter, cassette, cassette, chain and chainring were under £100 in total
Boost spacing, XD freehub, 12 speed?
Just because things look the same doesn't mean they are the same.
@thols2, it was you that said:
I think the main argument against them is how much lighter they make your wallet. Racers won’t use them because they are less efficient.
and now you are quoting the price of a Tourney mech?!
If you want to make that argument, then we can throw £80 Sturmey Archer hubs into the mix
Edit: this is derailing the thread -- I'm out of this one
Boost spacing, XD freehub, 12 speed?
Boost (to fit the frame), HG freehub (to fit the wheels), 10 speed.
I’ve ridden 12 speed a lot on work bikes. It’s sorted. But I don’t have it on my own bike as the trade offs aren’t worth my while. Gearboxes are likely to have fewer gears if they are to become mainstream and hit the right price point and be (virtually) maintenance free. The “need” for more and more gears is one of the things keeping gearboxes in their current niche.
Rohloff have as much range as any MTB setup - with better spaced gears. there is no need for more gears or more range
alfines are cheaper than most derailleurs
I don’t have it on my own bike as the trade offs aren’t worth my while.
No, you don't run 12 speed XD freehubs for <£100 because it's not possible to run 12 speed XD freehubs for <£100.
The point is that just because 135mm 10 speed looks the same as 148mm 12 speed doesn't mean they are the same thing. There is no part that can be transferred between bikes that run these entirely different set ups.
So despite the fact that wheels, frames, and freehubs have all completely changed, we are still left with basically the same as what we had before instead of a solution that would remove the single biggest weak point and suspension design limiter on the entire bike.
And what we are talking about is not a 'gearbox' a la Pinion et al, we are talking about the same components being shifted to a different part of the bike.
It would probably take a redesign of the frame, derailleur, and cassette, but guess what. We have already redesigned all those things for entirely marginal (and in some cases no) benefits.
I have no idea what your point is. Feels like I’ve walked in on argument that’s feeding on itself. My point was simply that it is not “the look” of gearbox bikes that is holding them back, it is other considerations. I agree with you that small incremental changes have reduced backwards compatibility for little gain. Real gain, but not a huge shift that’s necessarily worth the trade off for everyone.
alfines are cheaper than most derailleurs
Most derailleurs, by number of units sold, will be low-end stuff like Tourney and Altus. You're not going to build any sort of gearbox as cheaply as a Tourney derailleur.
This seems relevant here (doesn't really change the unsprung mass thing though)
https://www.nicolai-bicycles.com/Nucleon-16-Landing-EN
You’re not going to build any sort of gearbox as cheaply as a Tourney derailleur.
The same could have been said about 27.5.
27.5 was kicking around for years before one year it was decided it was the next big thing. It was a niche product so you paid niche prices. Once the big boys decided that was the way to go it was mainstream and you paid mainstream prices.
If Trek, Spesh, or Giant adopt Lal or Williams Racing Products (or there own homegrown solution) then that will be mainstream and we'll pay mainstream prices.
Fundamentally the components are the same, it's just the location that is changed.
Fundamentally the components are the same, it’s just the location that is changed.
Not with a gearbox. You need much more precision machining to build a gearbox compared with a derailleur system so it will always be more expensive. You won't get economies of scale because you need expensive factory equipment to do the machining work. A 26, 27.5, and 29er wheel are just the same basic design enlarged slightly.
Not with a gearbox.
I specifically said which solutions I was talking about (Lal, WRP, and Honda) and which ones I wasn't talking about (Pinion, etc).
A derailleur in a box is still going to be more expensive than a basic derailleur. You need to build the box, plus there will need to be two shafts in the box, an input and output shaft. Those both need to be sealed and the box has to be built precisely enough to be sealed, but also light weight so you're looking at a couple of large aluminium castings which need to be machined. Plus bearings and seals. A derailleur in a box will be bulkier than a planetary gear system so it's going to take a lot of space within the frame, which is going to require compromises with other aspects of your frame design and suspension. These things have been around for many years and all the bike companies know about them. If they thought they could build a better bike profitably, they would be doing it.
There's a lot of what you said that was wrong as can be seen by looking at the existing solutions. However, this is the main problem.
If they thought they could build a better bike profitably, they would be doing it.
No they wouldn't because people wouldn't buy them.
Because they don't look like what exists already.
If they thought they could build a better bike profitably, they would be doing it.
And profitability is higher for a system with a greater need for frequent replacement of wear-and-tear parts
No they wouldn’t because people wouldn’t buy them.
Because they don’t look like what exists already.
Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just pulling guesses out of thin air?
Because they don’t look like what exists already.
Really do not agree. Nothing else to add.
RamseyNeilFree Member
A US pint is 16 fl oz and not the 20 fl oz however and I don’t know how Stans get away with selling their sealant in US pints in the UK
It's worse than that, US fluid ounces are also a slightly different size to Imperial fluid ounces, so a US pint is not actually four fifths of an Imperial pint. It's actually a bit larger, 473ml rather than the 454ml you might expect.
Really? I never ever heard anyone call it a pint
I've had a metric pint this weekend. Even listed as such on the chalkboard (some places do 400 or 600ml too).
After all, they got the metric system there, they wouldn’t know what the heck a quarter pounder is.
We can order a quarter pounder with fries as well (i don't though, haven't been in one for a decade and a half). Even non-macdonalds places have 4oz/6oz/8oz burgers.
We're very metric.
Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just pulling guesses out of thin air?
As you said, if the big boys thought people would buy it they would have done it already.
They've had time to create multiple axle standards, multiple freehub standards, multiple BB standards, etc but they haven't had time to fix one of the few areas on the bike that genuinely needs to be fixed?
And it's not even like it's impossible to do as Lal (and Honda) have shown. Not to mention that Italian guy's solution that was made in the late 90s (there are probably others out there).
The point is that just because 135mm 10 speed looks the same as 148mm 12 speed doesn’t mean they are the same thing. There is no part that can be transferred between bikes that run these entirely different set ups.
What? You can get 12s HG cassettes, at worst that's a freehub swap.
it’s not even like it’s impossible to do as Lal (and Honda) have shown.
The Honda DH bikes were hand-built prototypes intended for their factory team. They did lease a few to other riders apparently, but the lease cost a fortune and Honda supplied a mechanic. The customer was not allowed to work on the bike or keep it, they were only allowed to ride it at races. The gearboxes were removed from the bikes every day and kept in the mechanics' hotel rooms. It was a DH bike so it did not have the gear range you'd need for an enduro bike that must be ridden uphill. Fitting a 10-50 tooth 12 speed cassette into a frame mounted gearbox is a much bigger challenge than the 7-speed road cassette that the Honda gearbox used. The Honda shows why derailleurs in a cage aren't common - they're expensive and difficult to package into a frame. They have benefits for niche uses like DH racing but they aren't going to replace regular derailleurs.
What? You can get 12s HG cassettes, at worst that’s a freehub swap.
Hmm, I guess you're right. If you wanted to you could fit a 12 speed XD cassette to your 135mm bike (after buying a new freehub).
I'm not sure if you were trying to make a point or just score a point there?
My point still stands that if you have a 135mm HG cassetted bike it will have no compatible parts with a 2023 mountain bike (except the cassette, if you bought a new freehub).
And yet it looks exactly the same and performs pretty much exactly the same. Despite every part now being completely different and incompatible. And no guarantees it's not going to change again in a couple of years time.
And through all this the biggest problem remains completely unsolved.
The Honda DH bikes were hand-built prototypes intended for their factory team.
Yes, going straight to production without making and testing any prototypes is an unusual strategy so it's not really surprising Honda would do so, is it?
But yeah, we have no idea what Honda's plans were. It's 0ne of those things that's shrouded in mystery and rumour and probably always will be.
Your argument is basically, it would only be suitable for DH bikes. Kind of like suspension, I guess.
And you're still ignoring Lal (and WRP) even though you can buy a Lal drive bike right now (at a niche and decidedly non-mainstream price).
Hmm, I guess you’re right. If you wanted to you could fit a 12 speed XD cassette to your 135mm bike (after buying a new freehub).
I’m not sure if you were trying to make a point or just score a point there?
My point still stands that if you have a 135mm HG cassetted bike it will have no compatible parts with a 2023 mountain bike (except the cassette, if you bought a new freehub).
No it doesnt. You can buy a 12 speed HG cassette from SRAM, Sunrace or any other far east manufacturers you could name bar Shimano. I could quite happily fit 12 speed to my 135mm 20 year old Trailstar for the cost of the drivetrain and nothing else. There is nothing about 12 speed that is particularly special barring the cassette if you want one in XD or Microspline flavour. Same with 11 speed which is why the "you needed boost to fit 11 speed" argument was rubbish as well.
Ah, so you were trying to score a point rather than make a point.
Just for reference, I've got a 2008 SC Nomad and a 2017 Giant Trance. Now, I could take the cassette directly from the Giant and put it on the SC. It wouldn't so anything once it was there (Direct mount derailleur) but it would sit there on the wheel.
So you are absolutely right.
What? No, you're claiming you can't fit 12 speed to a 135mm bike because "if you have a 135mm HG cassetted bike it will have no compatible parts with a 2023 mountain bike ", I'm simply refuting that.
Go and look at Deore 12s, is that direct mount? Are the shifters ONLY iSpecwhatever? Can you get a 12 speed cassette in HG?
It's not about point scoring, it's about you saying something provably false. I was wrong about 148/150, you're wrong about this. It happens, don't be so precious.
What? No, you’re claiming you can’t fit 12 speed to a 135mm bike because “if you have a 135mm HG cassetted bike it will have no compatible parts with a 2023 mountain bike “, I’m simply refuting that.
I added some stuff to my post.
I'm not sure what is so controversial. I can't remember exactly when the various changes happened, and I've admitted that I could put the cassette on my old Nomad wheel (even that wouldn't be possible if the Giant had XD) but there is nothing else that could be transferred to the old bike. Or maybe the cranks, it's difficult to remember what the chainlines are. And the shifters, I guess.
The main part of my argument is that almost every 'standard' has been changed and yet we are still left with a system that is indistinguishable from what was there before and all for limited, if any, improvement.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than I got something wrong? But that something doesn't affect the overall point I'm trying to make.
Yes, going straight to production without making and testing any prototypes is an unusual strategy so it’s not really surprising Honda would do so, is it?
But yeah, we have no idea what Honda’s plans were. It’s 0ne of those things that’s shrouded in mystery and rumour and probably always will be.
Your argument is basically, it would only be suitable for DH bikes. Kind of like suspension, I guess.
It was a company sponsored project to show off their engineering skills, they never had any intention of making production bikes. It's much easier to use a derailleur in a box on a DH bike because they don't need such a wide range of gears, the Honda used a road cassette with 7 sprockets, so probably only a 25 or 28 tooth large sprocket. To fit a 10-50 12 speed cassette into a frame would be much more difficult. The cassette would need to be several inches further from the input shaft and the derailleur would need to be much longer to have the range to cover that much larger cassette. That would probably limit you to a single pivot suspension design and also make it tricky to fit a shock in there. The Honda bike had the shock running through the seattube, so you can't fit a dropper post using that suspension design. Not a problem for a DH bike but a big problem for anything else. Look at the Honda bike and imaging that the gearbox is several inches longer, plus wider (to fit a 12 speed cassette), then tell me where you're going to fit the suspension and a dropper post.
Because your point was that you can't put 12s on an old bike and you absolutely can. That's it.
No, some variants can't be swapped over if you cherry pick your data points but that doesn't really prove anything.
FWIW I disagree with most of the drive train nonsense like the difference between road and mountain ratios and the introduction of different cassette sizes for road. I also find it amusing that people think flinging a load of extra weight to the rear rather than keeping it in the middle is in some way efficient. TBH my biggest bugbear with drive trains is ratios. Why constantly change them other than to force people to upgrade?
TBH my biggest bugbear with drive trains is ratios. Why constantly change them other than to force people to upgrade?
I'm still running 2x9 on most of my bikes, with 2x10 on a couple and 2x11 on one. To get a decent range with a single ring, you need a huge cassette with as many sprockets as possible to keep the gaps reasonably small. A single ring gives more space for wider tyres and suspension with 29" wheels. You could not get a wide enough range of gears with 1x9 for most people. You're limited to an 11-36 cassette so you need a 26 tooth chainring to be able to climb steep stuff if you're an averagely fit rider. That will mean spinning out on any descent. Fitting as many sprockets in the back and running a giant cassette is needed if you want to run a single ring up front.
I find the churn infuriating (I too had a non-boost 29er happily running 12s) but I could take every component on my rock lobster from the noughties bar the headset and fit it to the Solaris I bought in 2020. I mean, it would likely be terrible because the stem would be too long and the bars too narrow, and the wheels would be the wrong size, but I could pedal it round the block.
(Edit- I suspect the front mech might not fit either, but again, a front mech that would have fit was a standard size at the time).
It doesn’t work quite so neatly the other way but (wheels aside) the main things are a bigger steerer and a bigger seatpost, both of which I’m pretty sure were available at the time, just not on my bike. That’s admittedly because the hubs on the Solaris have been boosted at relatively little cost so could always be unboosted but that rather proves the ‘old things can work with new things’ point. It’s definitely annoying but it’s not the end of the world.
I suspect this'll be an unpopular opinion, but 29ers.
Better in some respects, but worse in others. On the whole, as a new standard, there aren't enough advantages to have been worth the change.
Yeah, compared to 26
I'm running 12 speed axs, with power meter cranks, on a 135mm qr-based road frame from 12 years ago, on a pro2 evo hub. Standards do move on, but if you're careful you can keep up with them.
whilst that's technically road, there's nothing on there to stop me using 12 speed x0 axs or whatever. I couldn't (I think) use anything from transmission though
@thols2 I don't disagree with any of that, I meant pull ratios. Should have been clearer.
I also try to stick with hubs that can be switched to whatever new standard I may stumble upon. Particularly happy with my 15mm Hope XC (okay it cost a bit more than a pair of end caps but still worked out in the end).
BruceWee
Full MemberMy point still stands that if you have a 135mm HG cassetted bike it will have no compatible parts with a 2023 mountain bike (except the cassette, if you bought a new freehub).
Not really sure what the underlying point is here so I might be misunderstanding, but... My current bike is all 2023 standards, and yet it's got the exact same ancient DT240 hubs in it that I had in my 2010 bike. As long as a hub was 12mm, it's convertible to boost etc, the conversion kits cost about £6 an end. The hub was HG back then but now it's got an XD 12-speed on it. It has XTR cranks from about 2007, a Fox 36 from I think 2015, brakes from 2010. I think the dropper post and stem are the only parts that are really contemporaneous with the frame, and ironically they're standards that could have worked with that 2010 bike.
Not really sure what the underlying point is here so I might be misunderstanding, but…
Yeah, I get that a lot. I'm seriously thinking about giving up on this forum because I can get my points across in person but on here I say something that makes sense to me and everyone goes ****ing mental. Mostly because they have fundamentally not understood what I have said so I'm thinking that I just fail to get my point across in written form.
Or I've just drifted so far from most people that the way I think is fundamentally incompatible with the majority now.
My point is that we went through most of the 00s with no changes in standards. Then the 10s came along and every standard was changed. Sure, you can buy adapters for compatibility in some cases but every single mounting point was changed. Axle spacing, derailleur mounting, freehub design, brake caliper mounting, BBs, chainlines, etc. Literally every part of the drivetrain now has a new standard and yet it looks exactly the same and has exactly the same major weaknesses.
So, my point. Instead of creating Boost, why the hell couldn't Trek have introduced Lal's design or something similar and fixed the biggest weak point and design limiting factor on full suspension mountain bikes?
My point is that we went through most of the 00s with no changes in standards. Then the 10s came along and every standard was changed. Sure, you can buy adapters for compatibility in some cases but every single mounting point was changed. Axle spacing, derailleur mounting, freehub design, brake caliper mounting, BBs, chainlines, etc. Literally every part of the drivetrain now has a new standard
There used to be two standards for disk brakes, ISO and post-mount. ISO was dropped and now everyone uses post-mount. You can bolt some 25 year-old Hayes brakes onto a brand new frame. You can't mount an old derailleur on a direct mount frame, but otherwise derailleur mountings haven't changed. Brand new Shimano BBs will fit an old frame from the 90s. Tapered forks will fit any headtube that has 44 mm ID if you fit the correct headset and straight steerer forks will fit a tapered headtube if you fit the correct headset. Any 1 1/8 threadless stem will fit any tapered steerer fork so you can fit oversized bars to an old bike if you have a compatible stem. Seatposts and saddles are compatible, as long as the seattube diameter isn't smaller than the seatpost. Pedals are compatible. You can fit a new 15 x 100 mm hub into an old QR fork with a cheap adapter, but not vice-versa, which is a good thing.
Yes, some standards have changed, but the backwards compatibility is actually quite impressive.
Instead of creating Boost, why the hell couldn’t Trek have introduced Lal’s design or something similar and fixed the biggest weak point and design limiting factor on full suspension mountain bikes?
As you said, it would have been too much, people wouldn't have bought it in the volume that would make it viable for them. Lal are ahead of a curve. Trek are a mainstream brand, they only go so far each time and mainstream buyers don't want dramatically different bikes. The biggest change usually comes from smaller brands who have to be ahead of the curves. And in this case (LAL) it's a lot of change to solve a problem that just isn't a major problem for most riders, it introduces other compromises or complexity that the mainstream will be wary of.
TBH the way many riders will spend big bucks on a posher or techier version of what we've had for 50 years seems odd but not unexpected. Mainstream vs outliers. Smart/techy/conspicuous slightly better versions of the norm for the mainstream (buy a Tesla) vs something different that creates real change for the outliers (keep your old car and add a Tern GSD)?
E-bikes may drive the change in this area of MTB. E-bike motors will go gearbox, rear hubs will change standard to be dishless on a narrow-ish OLD and there will be influence on non-e bikes. Perhaps the current 'add a cog' "12 speed is the Gillette Turbo Max 8 blade razor of the biking world" path will become wide-enough ratios from fewer sprockets. The close gaps 'maintaining cadence' thing is roadie. Maybe we get an enclosed 2x6 system that uses small sprockets and chainrings but keeping it enclosed and clean means it runs efficiently enough. No need to stay with current chain specs anyway. You'd get an overlap on 3 of the gears so perhaps there's a shift pattern that gives 9 sequential gears from the 12 ratios, or it uses a planetary 2-speed with a 6 speed block. The main barrier will still be having to design a frame specifically for it and the change or decisions that forces. It'll happen though. Change happens slowly then fast.
My shifter, cassette, cassette, chain and chainring were under £100 in total, and I haven’t touched them since fitting them three years ago (apart from the occasional clean).
Ignoring standards for a moment, just how little riding do you do?
Anyway, my next bike will be a gearbox eBike and TBH I don't GAS about whether it's compatible with any of my current bikes - do folk buy cars or motorbikes etc based on 'compatibility' with their current vehicle?
I'm just hopeful though that the market will have 'matured' enough for when I want/need my next bike for their to be a supply of them.
I'm not normally a first adopter, but I did get a LLS Cotic within months of its launch as I demo'd one on the trails I normally ride and couldn't believe how safe it felt compared to my (then) current bike. For its replacement I did exactly the same and demo'd/hired a number of bikes, this time eBikes, and then bought the one that worked best.
All my bikes do different things, I'm not that bothered about 'compatibility' with either each other of for their replacement as I proper wear things out and aren't a serial swapper - example is the Cotic, just over 5 years old and the only original parts are the stem & shock (it's done over 5,000 miles & 1,000,000 feet of ascending/descending).
Look at the Honda bike and imaging that the gearbox is several inches longer, plus wider (to fit a 12 speed cassette), then tell me where you’re going to fit the suspension and a dropper post.
Since the bike will be about a foot longer in the wheelbase because of what we've learned since it'll probably go in fine.
Not got time to read back through all the bickering from the usual suspects, but:
- Agree with OP. Any BB "standard" apart from threaded BSA really.
DUB is the perfect example of a failed standard in waiting, they'll come up with something else in a few years. Why oh why don't Sram just swallow their pride and make their cranks cross-compatible with Shimano?
- 35mm handlebars, a pointless new "standard" that actually seems to have become the standard, sadly
- Agree on internal cable routing (for anything apart from the dropper up the seat tube).
Anyone who goes on about liking a "clean" looking bike is a fanny.
- I'm not sure 12sp is actually better than 11sp, but I haven't ridden it enough to be 100%
Maybe we get an enclosed 2×6 system that uses small sprockets and chainrings but keeping it enclosed and clean means it runs efficiently enough. No need to stay with current chain specs anyway. You’d get an overlap on 3 of the gears so perhaps there’s a shift pattern that gives 9 sequential gears from the 12 ratios, or it uses a planetary 2-speed with a 6 speed block.
That will all be expensive to build, plus it will constrain frame designers a lot. Making a 2x6 shift cleanly under power will be a problem because one derailleur has to shift the chain under load. You can get away with that with a normal 2x system because you aren't shifting between the front rings very often. What you're proposing would mean that every second shift is shifting the chain under load so it won't shift as smoothly as a 1x12 system. Also, with a derailleur in a box system, the chainline needs to be kept straight because the chain is very short. The Honda gearbox moved the drive sprocket with the chain so that the chainline was always straight, but that's expensive because you need precision machined parts to do that. Trying to make it a 2x or 3x system won't make it any simpler or cheaper, it'll just make it shift worse.
There are all sorts of ways that you could build a bicycle transmission, but making one that is as cheap to manufacture as a normal derailleur and performs as well is not as simple as people imagine. Shimano have obviously thought about these things (hence their patents), but they haven't produced one yet because they don't believe it would be profitable. Same with SRAM, if they thought they could make a cheap frame mounted transmission that would make external derailleurs unnecessary, they would be selling them right now.
Yeah, I get that a lot. I’m seriously thinking about giving up on this forum because I can get my points across in person but on here I say something that makes sense to me and everyone goes **** mental.
@BruceWee, fwiw I get your point and I think it's a good one, even if you got some of the details wrong
Looks like jameso sees what you are getting at too
It does remind me of politics -- the constant discourse and promises of change and doing things differently, but then just more of the same, and when something genuinely different comes along (i.e. Corbyn) everyone looses their s**t
I wasn't really fishing 🙂
But okay, I bought a new 29" wheel bike at the start of this year as an upgrade for the same model 26" bike.
So...
+ rolls over stuff better
- worse at twisty singletrack
+ tubeless seems to work better with larger volume tyres
- bigger wheels seem to catch the sides of rocks/roots a lot more
+ better at climbing in the saddle
- much worse at climbing out of the saddle
- really heavy. It's ridiculous how much heavier. Both CF full suspension bikes, 26 has an alloy rear triangle, 29 is full CF. 26 has a triple, 29 is 1x. 29 is 3kg heavier.
- much more annoying to transport
I do like the new bike, but on the whole, I think 29 is a worse standard.
That will all be expensive to build, plus it will constrain frame designers a lot. Making a 2×6 shift cleanly under power will be a problem because one derailleur has to shift the chain under load. You can get away with that with a normal 2x system because you aren’t shifting between the front rings very often. What you’re proposing would mean that every second shift is shifting the chain under load so it won’t shift as smoothly as a 1×12 system.
I didn't have a 2-step type system in mind, you're right that would be messy. I was thinking of a system that shifted the front at the right point across the cassette so that the overlaps were taken out ie 9 speeds from a total of 12 ratios. Remove the overlap ratios that one ring creates at one end of the block and run through as a sequential range. 2x just creates ratio range within the space by reducing sprocket sizes, and I doubt it'd be prohibitively complex to have the chain staying in the same position. Certainly more expensive than std mechs but when Transmission is the price it is and reportedly isn't that fast a shift anyway it doesn't seem a stretch to think a chain gearbox can be viable. The biggest problem probably would be creating momentum for the shift to compatible frames.
It'd bring in new design constraints like mid motors or gearboxes do but ..
if we just created a standard for mounting points ..
@Aidy, all fair points.
Like you, I went from 26 to 29, although a few years ago. It did take some getting used to, for the reasons you mention. I think it also needs a slightly different riding style. Initially, when I rode my 29er like my 26er I was much slower. Over time I think it's given me more confidence.
What's interesting to me is that my mate has a couple of 27.5 bikes, full suspension and hardtail, and whenever I've ridden them, I've enjoyed them for many of the reasons that you mention. However I also really enjoy riding my 29er.
it doesn’t seem a stretch to think a chain gearbox can be viable
They're viable in the sense that they function. The problem is that they are much more expensive to make and will be difficult to package into a small sized suspension frame.
One benefit of the Honda version was that it could shift while the bike was coasting. That's great for a DH specific bike. One issue is that they may not shift well under load because the drive sprocket has to slide along the input shaft along with the derailleur. For an XC bike, the crucial thing is being able to shift when you are applying full power out of the saddle on a steep climb. I don't think a derailleur in a box would shift as cleanly as a normal derailleur under those conditions.
if we just created a standard for mounting points ..
Dreamer.
😉
@thols2 Sure, I get that it's not a simple project and I don't disagree with you, I don't see it being a system that would replace mechs in a racing situation. So as long as people buy what pros race it's a hard sell and it still will be for anyone wanting light and efficient gearing. Mechs have stuck around for good reason. But not everyone is racing or needing what refined mech systems offer, there are other ways to do it and they'll all have pros and cons.
there are other ways to do it and they’ll all have pros and cons.
Yes, and the derailleur in a box is never going to be a mainstream replacement for traditional derailleurs because it will always be more expensive, plus it is much more difficult to package into a small suspension frame. There's no magic involved, everyone knows how they work and they aren't widely used because the minor benefits aren't enough to overcome the huge disadvantages.
The huge advantage to a different gearing system isn't factored in to most people's thinking (and certainly not corporate thinking), that is the massive reduction in material usage to ride a given distance
Those Rohloff's that have done ~100,000 miles have likely avoided the use of about 20 cassettes, perhaps twice as many chains, and however many mechs would have broken during that time, which could total ~20 kg of metal, so around the same weight as ~8-15 hardtail frames (or there abouts)
So they may appear expensive from a conventional cost calculation when compared to lower-end performace kit like Deore, but that's largely as resources and environmental damages remain underpriced
I'd love to see durability standards that made this point take more prominance with bike tech, but it's not going to happen
never going to be a mainstream replacement for traditional derailleurs
Hold on, I'd not said that all MTBs, like from £600 HT to XC race to Enduro etc, would move over to a new boxed drivetrain, or a gearbox is better etc, just that it's a 'maybe' and e-bike development might influence pedal MTBs. We have £1500+ mech systems now so I wouldn't say 'never' based on cost relative to what people spend on bikes generally. We can get motors and gearboxes into small frames already. Either way .. since no-one's really buying bikes for durability and not many riders are actually pedalling that far in bad conditions, I also reckon it won't happen. But I wouldn't discount it outright.
And whatever happens there wouldn't be a mounting standard.
I’d love to see durability standards that made this point take more prominance with bike tech, but it’s not going to happen
..exactly. Though we have Linkglide now, so that's a start of e-bikes influencing the durability of drivetrains (as posted below as I was editing to add this). And before that SRAM had am 8-speed e-bike cassette. NSMB have some good articles on a future with fewer gears.
I’d love to see durability standards that made this point take more prominance with bike tech, but it’s not going to happen
Shimano have gone down this exact route with their Linkglide stuff, haven't they?
IIRC it's claimed to have 3x the longevity of their normal kit, apart from the chains which are the same.
legometeorology
The huge advantage to a different gearing system isn’t factored in to most people’s thinking (and certainly not corporate thinking), that is the massive reduction in material usage to ride a given distance
Those Rohloff’s that have done ~100,000 miles have likely avoided the use of about 20 cassettes, perhaps twice as many chains, and however many mechs would have broken during that time, which could total ~20 kg of metal, so around the same weight as ~8-15 hardtail frames (or there abouts)
I'd say only a small minority of bikes sold reach a tenth of that distance. The reality is most people will never replace one cassette on a bike, let alone 20. You make a great case for long distance tourers, less so for the average.
Aargh lost my reply.
Bruce, every single thing on your list had multiple incompatible variations during the 2000s, your point is completely wrong. It's always been like this. You just chose not to engage in it as you're quite entitled to do now.
I’d say only a small minority of bikes sold reach a tenth of that distance. The reality is most people will never replace one cassette on a bike, let alone 20. You make a great case for long distance tourers, less so for the average.
There's no reason a single rider has to do that many miles though, nor that the gear system has to go with the rest of the bike.
I'm a chronic bike changer, but I expect my Rohloff will just be moved onto whatever new bike I happen to think will solve all my problems next year. If not, I'll sell it to someone else who may add a few more thousand miles on to it (it had also done thousands of miles before I bought it). Kind of like a well made steel frame, which can be bouncing around different owners for years/decades.
External gear systems are in contrast built from a collection of disposable parts.
Those Rohloff’s that have done ~100,000 miles have likely avoided the use of about 20 cassettes, perhaps twice as many chains, and however many mechs would have broken during that time, which could total ~20 kg of metal, so around the same weight as ~8-15 hardtail frames (or there abouts)
The number of people who ride 100,000 miles in their lifetime is tiny. The people I work with think I'm amazing because I do a 10 km each way commute by bike on nearly flat terrain. If I drove to work every day for a month instead of riding, that would burn more than 20 kg of petrol, so 1 kg of metal per 5,000 miles is pretty environmentally friendly compared to anyone who commutes by car.
Most bicycle owners never replace the chain or cassette even once for the lifetime of their bike. A basic commuter bike with a steel cassette will last for years if the chain is lubed, only serious cyclists replace chains twice a year. On top of that, metal is easily recycled so it's not the case that those old chains and cassettes are just going into landfill.
I would have moved my spare rohloff onto my new emtb - but its now impossible to buy a decent proper MTB without one of these new standard axles so I cannot. Interchangability is great. I also cannot use my trailer axle with it so will have to bodge trailer mounts another way
I suspect this’ll be an unpopular opinion, but 29ers.
Wheels should be tied to rider height.
Its mad to expect a 6'4" magnificence to a man to ride a bike that can also be ridden by Hobbits, but with a longer seat tube.
Hairy footed little boys and girls get to sit behind their handlebars, where as us taller folk have to sit up above them and reach down to them, meaning the brakes have a much greater liklihood of sending you OTB
29er goes a long way to resolving that. My first 29er was a revelation.
I dont know of any standards that are worse, but there are plenty that are no better
Boost, Super Boost, mega boost, can all get stuffed.
It should go:
1: Rim brake Road bike
2: Mountain bike (and disk roads),
3: DH/Cargo/Tandem Fatboy bike
And i think thats being generous. 135mm never bothered anyone before 2010.