You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Looks good, but...
Another freehub standard
Hydraulic? Great if it doesn't need bleeding all the time.
It's gonna be expensive.
Still waiting for SRAM eagle eTap to make an official appearance.
I like it. The way they describe the freehub makes it sound like the open source standard that Hope and One Up developed in which case, it's already out there.
I've wanted hydraulic shifting since I first read about SAFE (Scott Allen Fide Engineering) hydraulic lines that adapted to normal mechs and shifters.
As for bleeding, I don't see any reason why it would need it too often. A small reservoir at the shifter to allow the pressure to reset each time you get to the end of the block should do it.
That's an interesting read.
Sounds like they have it covered - I like that you can also use the shifter & mech on 12 speed too.
Would be interested to see/feel hydraulic shifting.
My view is if riders truely need 1x13 they need actually a 2x10/11 setup.
However if people just want it because....then good for them and it's great to see smaller companies continuing to develop drivetrain products for mtb.
Benefits of hydraulic over cable, maybe.
I thought it looked interesting, in the same way I find overly expensive cycle clothing interesting. Pointless me buying any, no matter how good it is, as the chances of a third party bringing out a fat bike hub with that new open standard are, I would have thought, minimal.
Rotor have been doing fluid road bike mechs shifter for a few years but it’s not taken off.
And acros have had some out for ages
"One of the key highlights of the groupset is the intercompatibility between both road and mountain bike components."
Round of applause.... Shimano and SRAM's lack of road-MTB compatibility is a PITA. Anyone who makes a 'bike' groupset rather than designated road or MTB is on the right track imo. I know there's specific demands within each area but is it really that hard to stick to a gear cable pull ratio and let the rider decide how to spec a bike? They managed it in the past.
I know there’s specific demands within each area but is it really that hard to stick to a gear cable pull ratio and let the rider decide how to spec a bike? They managed it in the past.
What, and have customers buying less stuff? Rotor are relatively small, redeveloping the product to make road/MTB market specific versions probably isn't cost effective for them as much as anything.
As for the hydraulics and extra cog, wonderful USPs but I doubt I'll be paying for it. Bowden cables or stepper motors are now the established technologies for shifting, I doubt they will be taking a huge chunk out of the market.
The industrial design is brilliant - that mech would look great on an UNNO...
the chances of a third party bringing out a fat bike hub with that new open standard are, I would have thought, minimal.
But if it is the Hope mini driver standard, which I think it most probably is, then there's your answer.
Looks good . The article says Rotor have sold more road groupset than they thought they would .
That Rotor mech is fuglier than something that fell out of the fugly tree, hit every branch on the way down & went back for another go....
I'd rather stick spokey dokes & reflectors on my bike!
So that's a completely unique freehub and rear hub then? A wider freehub and closer together hub flanges.
The rear mech looks like RoboCops Bluetooth earpiece.
Technically interesting and the best advert for having a gearbox bike.
All that high tech and expensive stuff just dangling where the scenery can do its worst seems daft to me.
No doubt it will work very well though.
I don't understand why companies are insisting on changing the freehub to fit a 10t cog. Why they don't just pin an extra cog or two to the inside of the cassette (to slightly overhang the hub flanges) is beyond me.
My thoughts too Mr Synch. The 2x system is so much kinder on wearouts and adjustment range plus I can get 3000 good hard miles out of my 2x drivetrain. The manufacturers are pushing the 1x for loads of good reasons and I know my type of riding is quite niche so i will watch this Rotor development..... its the first 1x that has made me think of a test ride on the system.
There is some good engineering in there for sure.
Ceramic Speed have shown their 13 speed concept drive-train... https://bikerumor.com/2018/07/08/wild-ceramicspeed-driven-13-speed-drivetrain-concept-shifts-with-no-derailleur/
I don’t understand why companies are insisting on changing the freehub to fit a 10t cog. Why they don’t just pin an extra cog or two to the inside of the cassette (to slightly overhang the hub flanges) is beyond me.
Weight. A tooth off the small cog saves a little weight but another huge one on the other end would add a load.
That Rotor mech is fuglier than something that fell out of the fugly tree, hit every branch on the way down & went back for another go….
I’d rather stick spokey dokes & reflectors on my bike!
You care about what your rear mech looks like? You absolute tart 🙂
if only they could make it shift...
back to the rotor/hydraulic shifting. How does it actually work, I can’t seem to get my head round it but then im coming from a push-pull cable way of thinking. Is it more like SRAMs double tap?
I don’t understand why companies are insisting on changing the freehub to fit a 10t cog. Why they don’t just pin an extra cog or two to the inside of the cassette (to slightly overhang the hub flanges) is beyond me.
What @molgrips said, but also extra weight arising from needing a bigger capacity derailleur for the same gear spread and a bigger front ring for the same ratios, which will each involve extra chainilinks as well.
The 10t cog thing is not to find extra width. The cassette is already as wide as it can get whether you are using a 10t or 11t small cog. In 11 speed and up the biggest cog is dished inwards a bit on mtbs. As long as the big cog is dinner plate sized this is possible with standard hub and cassette carrier widths. But for smaller big cogs (like on road bikes) a wider cassette carrier/narrower hub body is used (presumably to avoid the derailleur getting too close to the spokes). So with a 12 speed chain, the only way you could fit an extra gear in is to have a wider cassette carrier and narrower hub. I am wondering if they do a non-boost rear hub, which would be very dishy.
Oh wow that ceramic speed concept is truly different
back to the rotor/hydraulic shifting. How does it actually work, I can’t seem to get my head round it but then im coming from a push-pull cable way of thinking. Is it more like SRAMs double tap?
I was wondering that as there's only a single hydraulic line. The pinkbike video touches on it, a big push moves to a larger gear with a small push moving to a smaller one, you can have a single lever and tap it for moving one way and give it a large push to go t'other way or have 2 seperate levers like a cable shifter.
I presume there's a couple of hydraulically actuated switches in the mech that are actuated with different pressures.
Oh wow that ceramic speed concept is truly different
Shaft drive has been around for 100+ years, never caught on
Not much use on full suspension bikes with always changing chainstay lengths either...
Interesting what bits of that ceramic speed system peeps focus on. Shaft drive yeah, seen them. That system of things at the back (I don't even know what the correct name for it would be*) whoa! And, after looking at it a bit more "good luck with getting that from concept to production". But if they manage to get it to work well enough to be a serious challenger to derailleur systems, then, well, that will be the biggest thing in cycling for, er, a very long time.
* I am sure that the basic concept has almost certainly been around for donkeys years, though I wasn't aware of it. There are no doubt hundreds old ideas out there which, given a bit of re-engineering with modern materials and manufacturing techniques, are worthy of re-evaluation.
Not much use on full suspension bikes with always changing chainstay lengths either…
I thought that, but looking at it, there will already have to be a sliding join in the system to cope with the gear shifting, so giving it a (relatively) small amount of chainstay growth to cope with as well should;n't add to the technical problems.