[Closed] Who's desperate for a gearbox FS bike then?

I read that review yesterday, although I didn't read the comments so didn't pick up on the comments from the guy from Zerode.

Although his comments about Mike Levy's riding skills were childish and out of order, I do think he has a point about the weight of the bike: Putting over 2kg of tyres on a bike that is meant to be climbed is always going to make it feel sluggish.

He did apologise, and retract some of what he said, later on, which is something.

It’s not really a point though when Mike Levy has ridden lots of 160mm bikes with similar tyres

The rims and tyres are about the same weight I use, but I guess they could have safely saved 200g on the pair of rims.

I didn't even think the review was that harsh. It was full of praise for the DH performance. Zerode fella's response seems very petulant. It was his distributor who sent the bike like that.

And slagging the writer for his bad riding in a video illustrating how not to ride is a bit of a fail.

Not read the review yet. I really wanted to fall in love with the zerode but it just didn't happen. Some aspects of the bike were great but there were some compromises in the ride that for me, just went too far.

no - heavy, they don't work as well as a mech and cost too much.  I personally don't find that Zerode particularly interesting, its certainly not one I would consider with a mech.

Is there no mention of how waterproof the gearbox is?

Looking a the bike it looks to be very similar to a e-bike around the crank/chainring area i.e not much free space for mud to just fall away like on a normal mtb, instead it looks like it will build up in that area which will then inevitably end up being washed off with a hose pipe and could lead to an ingress of water

I would be staggered if the maintenance interval (claimed 10,000km) was anything like that IRL. I suppose NZ does have similarly disgusting weather to us, but even so, anything with cable entry points is going to ship water at some point.

I'd love to have a go on one when they've figured out how to neaten up the shifter to a thumb-jobby. I wonder if they could just have one fatter cable with two cables inside rather than two cables leaving the shifter.

Also, isn't the idle pulley situated just behind the gearbox almost as vulnerable to flying rocks as a conventional mech?

Levy at PB doesn't seem to have had a problem, but about half the gearbox bike reviews I read say they had a fault of some kind during test.

I'd have a Geometron version of this, and I wouldn't have to worry about technical climbing. Just revel in the silence and the amazing suspension.

Not really intrigued by anything else. I love the idea but the technology isn't there yet.

Also, isn’t the idle pulley situated just behind the gearbox almost as vulnerable to flying rocks as a conventional mech?

not really, it will flick up/back if it makes contact with something. Roox Roller Coaster was one of the first decent chain guides years ago as it did exactly this, much better than having it at the rear wheel where it would be limited in its movement

I’m happy for progress but see this more as parallel evolution than as revolution for derailleur-kind.  Derailleurs work just fine for me, gearboxes have a lot of running to do before they’re ready for the mainstream in my view,  although the r&d for ebikes should benefit them I’d think.

I'm all for gearboxes.

I think switching from gears to SS when riding with gears I subconsciously leave a few inches on the drive side for the mech past rocks/stumps.

When I swap back to gears I tend to smash a disproportionate number them then get quite timid for a while! Then swap back to SS and cut corners with impunity.

It's a definite no from me. I like descending, but love charging into short climbs and changing down as I loose momentum. The no changing under power just kills it for me !!!

P.s

I thought the review was very fair. I wish all reviews were as good.

Its only good points were when it went downhill - heavy bike and they didnt need to change gear, so it went down well.

Rear derailleurs dont have problems that need solving.  Plus the biggest and most glaring issue with that gearbox is you can't shift gears while pedaling.

I too dont think its going to be water/mud proof.  Once it fills with muddy puddle water its going to grind to death very fast.

When Pinkbike did a poll of who had broken a rear mech, very few said they had.

When Pinkbike did a poll of who had broken a rear mech, very few said they had.

That I remeber I've broken 3 whilst riding mtb's since 1987. It's not something that I really consider.

But others ride differently or just like different/new things. It's good that the choice is there, even if it's at a price 😨

If you’d asked me a few years ago I would have begged for one, but I managed to destroy 4 expensive derailiers in as many days... grrr

Mate’s got a steel HT with a Alfine 8 box out back and it’s blumming lovely to ride, for just riding rather than being super gnar it’s possibly the nicest bike I’ve ever ridden.

I’m not against the idea, the current way seems complex and less ‘perfect’ in the age of 1x the arguement against them used to be the lack of gears.

Rear dérailleurs have plenty of problems that need solving.  Fragile, can't change gear when stationary, can't shift under load either or you break a chain.  Expensive when the cassettes wear out  thin chains wear out very quickly.  their main advantage is lightness.  I have an alfine, a rohloff and an SS as well as two dérailleur bikes.  Going from the IGH to the dérailleur reminds you how poor dérailleurs can be  and I have XTR ones.  It horses for courses and what compromises you are prepared to make but the longevity of non deraileur drivetrains wins for me

I really fancied a demo of the new Deviate Guide. The poor weather and snow killed that one due to availability but i am really interested to see if an internal gearbox suits my style of riding. I am not a mech breaker as the one i am running has lasted 4 years.

I would like at least 2 days demo to fully get my head round the differences and see if i think they are a positive or too much of a compromise.

spectacularly graceless response from “Zerodeguy”

Innit. surely an example of "don't post while drunk" ?

TJ; I can shift under load with my derailleurs just fine, it's just noisy is all. Mine have no problems that "need solving" it's cheap, reliable, and fits every bike, lasts ages (I've never bust a mech, ever) I don't need to change gear when I'm not going anywhere, and entirely home serviceable...and light.

change gear when stationary

never need to get into a different gear when standing still.  I have enough power in any gear while stationary.

until you have ridden a bike when you can change gear when stationary then you realise what a boon it is.  Never get poor shifting as the drivetrain wears or gets dirty, never drop a chain, can change loads of gears with one movement Gearbox / IGH drivetrains last so much longer - a chain every few thousand miles, a cheap sprocket after many thousand compared to a full drive train at a thousand or two miles at a cost of hundreds. - again when you have ridden a bike with IGH  for a while you realise just how much you save in drivetrains.

Unless you have ridden a IGH / gearbox bike for a good while you cannot appreciate its advantages.

Unless you have ridden a IGH / gearbox bike for a good while you cannot appreciate its advantages.

And you can't appreciate it's many disadvantages as well......

compared to a full drive train at a thousand or two miles at a cost of hundreds.

Now I like the gearbox/IGH idea but you really are overstating that.  A cassette and chain doesn't cost hundreds, more like £30.

There are also disadvantages Mr Blackandwhite which is why I haven't got one 🙂

The shifting under load is an odd one to me.  I can't fathom why you'd crunch through the cassette under heavy load unless you're racing for actual prize money.  Backing off a bit is normal surely?

I've had a Rohloff a few years now and love the shifting while stationary ability.  I miss it going back to my current derailleur system.  There's pros and cons, but overall I'd take the gearbox shifting any day.

What I just can't get on with any more though is the slow pick up.  I'm riding an Onyx clutch hub now with instant pickup and it's fantastic.  The slow pickup on the roly feels horrible in comparison.

The shifting under load is an odd one to me.  I can’t fathom why you’d crunch through the cassette under heavy load unless you’re racing for actual prize money.  Backing off a bit is normal surely?

Well, on a Boris Bike you have to back off almost completely - much more than with a derailleur.

I think I probably break at least one mech a year, which considering I probably ride SS exclusively for at least 9 months is pretty poor going. Usually it'll be a stump or something on the inside of a right hand corner.

Worst were 9/10speed era SRAM, they bent if you so much as looked at a rock on the trail. Got through 3 in a British summer!

Best were 8 and 9 speed shimano. They seemed to twang rather than bend!

As TJ (and Zerode in their response) said, gearboxes aren't perfect, but with practice would pausing your pedal to shift (which you still have to do slightly wit a dereilieur) be any less inconvenient than not being able to shift while not pedaling.

And the cost isn't bad, considering it will not just outlast a cassette by a factor of 10 before it even needs an oil change. And in all that time it should just work, not deteriorate to the point of barely shifting in  fairly short winter ride.

to a full drive train at a thousand or two miles at a cost of hundreds.

don't be so silly. it's nothing like that much, I change cassette, chain, and cable once a year, keep it all clean and tuned and it never misses a beat, just like yours. gearboxes are an alternative fo'shure, but derailleurs are fine for 99% of folk also.

Bedmaker tbf I hardly ever crunch through the gears, but it's just noise, not hurting it.

Rayban / molgrips - I clearly stated above that its a case of what compromise do you prefer.  All systems have compromise  igh / gearbox are heavy and the shifting is never as crisp as a good dérailleur

I might try and invent another alternative.  Hmm.

I really don't understand the comments about tyre weight, that bike needs proper tyres on- it's not about whether the spec was heavy or light, but suitable, and it was. Seems to be a lot of special pleading going on.

I like the idea of a gearbox bike, I'd have had it on my commuter if it weren't for price- and for mountain biking and when they make a good one for a good price I might buy it. Nobody's even trying yet, for this sort of bike.

Backing off a bit is normal surely?

Of course it is. But if you read the review it's backing of to almost no power. So almost no uphill shifting!!

I've got both & I know which I prefer, it's NOT the Rohloff...

Big lump out back affects the balance & has a massive affect on the handling - you're thudding into every dip in the trail & the rear wheel drops like a stone off any jump, shifting is not as controllable compared to a normal setup when you're ragging it. As for the shifting whilst stationary? Big deal....

Yeah it's fairly much maintenance free but that's pretty much it.

Gearboxes are ok, but they aren't the silver bullet some would say they are that's for sure!

I was bored and having a rummage through the comments and found this

"I genuinely believe that for a section of the mountain bike community the Zerode Taniwha is the best and most fun bike they can possibly own. Early on in this journey I tested the Pinion gearbox, modified how I ride and shift and whole heartedly believe that the advantages of the Pinion outweigh the disadvantages. If I hadn’t come to this conclusion the project would never have got off the ground.

It takes a HUGE amount of commitment and risk both financial and personal to make a project like this happen. Anyone that has attempted a similar thing in their life time will understand what this feels like, those of you that haven’t please take the time to think about it. As a result it is very difficult not to take any criticism very personally.

The best place for me is in my garage creating or on my bike riding! Not dwelling on the fact that I don’t have the resources and marketing power etc etc of much bigger brands or that I can’t bring out a new model every few months. I know if I spend time on the interweb taking in what the rest of the bike industry is doing these frustrations become very real to me. Every minute we are exposed to the new best thing ever! 5 seconds later we are looking for something new. I use a handful of rules to ensure I can carry on doing what I love and making bikes and not stressing about what I can’t do. Rule number one is that I don’t look at bike related websites and never look at comments.

Yesterday I broke that rule, the attachment I have to this epic project that has consumed me for years made some of Mikes comments feel like a personal attack on me and it didn’t seem fair that because the large voice he has should expose a huge number of people to his opinion and thoughts on the bike and that these opinions and thoughts differ to mine. Having dug a little deeper I understand that Mike is fully capable of testing a bike to its full potential and I just have to come to terms that he didn’t gel with the shifting and set up in the same way that I do or my customers do. I would prefer that the bike Mike tested was built up with lighter parts that may well be more suited to the style of riding he prefers. But the point of this reply is not to argue or get my point across. It is to say sorry to Mike and that I appreciate that he is also doing the best job he can, his thoughts and opinions are valid and well thought out and I need to obey my own rules not to get upset by people that don’t agree with me or see my point of view.

I hope this helps you all understand what it is like to be in my position and why I said what I said."

In fairness there were some positives included in the review, but if you are going to sell something as an Enduro/all mountain type bike then it will be assessed by comparison with other similar (derailleur shifting) bikes...

9.5k would buy a very good bike with a mech... Or two, and that was really the context he was reviewing it in...

Overall his points were fairly made, and while there is a vocal, foaming at the mouth, mech hating crowd of gearbox proponents even they would have to admit there are some compromises inherent in the pinion box...

Personally I still think the "mech in a box"  solution (see petespeed and RN01) could stand more investigation and development, and would yield a lower drag solution possibly able to shift under load. of course these days people want broad range and those old solutions were worked up for DH racing over a decade ago.

It does also seem like pinion have all but cornered a rather small and expensive niche with early adopters of gearboxes (till SRAM stomp in) and in fairness to zerode the major criticism in that article (as I see)  it wasn't really of the bike, but the way the gearbox operates...

For me. This ol' thing still makes more sense than anything original Levy has ever said.

It's kind of a shame the DH bike design could never really have evolved into a Enduro bike light enough to be of interest

I've no real interest in reading the PB review or the comments on the Taniwha but for any knight jumping to defend Levy's honour over whatever comments Metz made about his riding skill. First take a look at the guy ride. It's actually quite painful to watch. And certainly not worth getting your shiny armour dirty over.

I've had a gearbox FS bike for a couple of years now and I like the Pinion gearbox a lot, so much in fact that I recently bought a hardtail with a Pinion gearbox. Yes they carry a weight penalty and the shifting is different to a derailleur system but I prefer it overall. I think the shifting under load issue is overstated as the only shift i have to think about is the range shift from 5th to 4th but maybe I've adjusted to the system and time my pedaling/shifts without thinking. Having to pedal to shift on derailleur systems was mostly not an issue too (though occasionally inconvenient) but years of using derailleurs probably meant I was dealing with their requirements without thinking about it too.

Every time a magazine reviews a Pinion bike the same old arguments come out.  I rode Rohloff for many years on full sus and hardtail and then spent 4 years on a Pinion bike. Katie’s got an Alfine 11 and I’ve got a belt drive Alfine 8 commuter.

Hub gears are a lump and they do affect handling off road.  I rode with it for many years but I’d not go back.  On road for commuting/utility riding they’re brilliant. Alfine much draggier and the 11 we’ve got has always pissied oil.

Pinion is s different class. Never felt draggy to me, solves weight distribution problem (suspension does work noticeably better - i’ve Ridden basically the same bike with all 3 systems and noticeably better with Pinion. Overall weight distribution is good too.

I think part of the problem is testers never really get them for long enough, and rarely ride old knackered kit - they’re always on bikes a few months old.  Personally I really miss being able to shift when stationary. Despite the slow pick up i found it a real benefit on slow techy, rocky, riding.

≥≥Of course it is. But if you read the review it’s backing of to almost no power. So almost no uphill shifting

Just not the case. Maybe its a learned skill but I was never unable to shift on a Rohloff or Pinion even on super steep, super slow uphill.  I could always take the pressure off and keep riding - you can do it while trackstanding if you need to.  Restarting on a conventional mech is much more problematic, even more so on a 1x11 where more than half a pedal stroke backwards normally means the chain dropping down the block (now theres a broken system) Speed of shift not an issue either. No reason you cant race on them (and how many of us really race anyway)

Why am i not riding one now? They are heavy - overall bike weight is up a 1kg or more and that is noticeable.  Main isssue though is that the gearbox outlasts the frame.  I wanted a slightly different bike and Nicolai didn’t make the new geometry, 27.5 frame, with Pinion.Still trying to work out what to do with the Pinion bike as I’m not getting any real interest on eBay. I might end up stripping it off the frame and getting it built onto a custom frame of some kind.

I really liked the ride of the Taniwha, the mass centralisation really helped and I was even okay with the shifting under load/no load aspect.

The two things that made it a non starter for me were the rotary shifter. It felt quite stiff and ended up rubbing my hand in an unpleasant way. It also felt odd that the indexing was in the box rather than the shifter. It never missed a shift but it felt vague.

The real deal breaker for me was the lag on the gearbox "freewheel". It is around 30°. That made technical climbing and riding through deep ruts a real ball ache.

An electronic shifter or trigger shifter with an instant sprag type freewheel on the box would sort it for me.

An electronic shifter or trigger shifter with an instant sprag type freewheel on the box would sort it for me.

Not an engineer who understands gearboxes, but is this the kind of thing that could eventually work with a Di2-type arrangement in tandem with a clutch at the gearbox, or would that add too much complexity and weight?

whats the fuss

bloke does review

bloke gets arsey about review

loads of people talk about stuff

I like these new developments and these "different" bikes.

But for me "bang for the buck" is key and I'am a big, big fan of the low cost Deore stuff. Yes - there is some maintenance to do. But performance si fantastic - when I'am on the trail I'am just happy and don't miss a gearbox at all.

And when I meet a biker with a gearbox bike I'am glad to have a chat with him and admire the people building these bikes.

But once you have to room, the tools to swap a convential drivetrain: don't see any big issues there.

It's a bike I've thought would be perfect for steep scottish conditions winch and plummet tweed valley kinda riding and I still think it might be. I think the reviewer got a bit of the hump with the gearbox early on and let it taint his experience of what is a bike that seems to descend very well. Weight wise it's not much different from the new transitions (or my old one with >1kg tyres). Hopefully by the time I'm able to afford one the next gen gearboxes will be spot on

A cassette and chain doesn’t cost hundreds, more like £30.

do you even sram bro?

I can't help thinking they're going about gearbox bikes the wrong way.

I'd much rather buy a gearbox bike that changed gears seamlessly and under power that had 5 gears than a heavy one with issues that had 18.

It’s a bike I’ve thought would be perfect for steep scottish conditions winch and plummet tweed valley kinda riding and I still think it might be.

I posted on the PB comments section that it would appear to make more sense for longer-travel bikes, something like my old 180mm Orange Patriot - where you're not gonna be trying to sprint up short climbs anyway and an extra 2lb won't really notice.

Maybe even on a long-travel e-bike?

They are definitely on my radar, for when/if i decide to replace my gnarpoon, currently a mk3 Nomad, that is mainly used for winch and plummet stuff. I’ve had a ‘gearbox’ DH bike (GT IT1) and liked how it rode, despite the truly awful application of the IGH in the frame, attached to a fixed rear wheel. I’m also used to the lift off to shift aspect, as if I didn’t on my ebike, I’d be needing to bring a selection of rear mechs on every ride that required a gear change...

I’ve also never broken a rear mech beyond a little skipping in a couple of gears so that isn’t really an issue (touch wood)

So my perfect gearbox bike bike would be carbon framed, 180mm travel, single crown fork, DW link rear suss, could be built to 31-32lbs (budget isn’t really an issue...) and a trigger shifter, be that cable or leccy. Geometry suited to bike park type riding please.

i suspect I’ll be waiting at least a couple of years...

Considering the low demand for gearbox bikes, and people having different needs for them, a semi-custom set-up like Nicolai or Starling do might be the best option - so people can choose their own geometry, wheelsize etc.

Most important: the "fun level" of an mountain bike.

1 kg "too much" won't kill the fun so.

Gearbox full suspension bikes will be always expensive - the customers expect a very high "fun level" for this money...

And: was watching the EWS round 1 "full highlights" video a couple minutes ago. Sooner or later the gearbox Enduro companies need to race in EWS. A proper designed gearbox Enduro bike should be able to win ? Guess so. Or?

If they are not able to get onto the podium the gearbox full suspension Enduro bikes will be stuck in the niche market. Possible as well.

Maybe, but I can't see Zerode or any other gearbox manufacturer being able to afford to put Sam Hill on one of their bikes.

If you put anyone else up to represent gearboxes there's a chance they might not win and if a gearbox bike didn't win at the first attempt then it would be proof positive that gearboxes don't work.

Bikes don't win races, money wins races

Zerode don't have the money to buy a top name rider, fly them round the world and provide all the other support they need.

Zerode DH bikes often win regional NZ races

@BruceWee, @thepodge:

Good points. But don't agree.

Yes - not possible for Zerode to pay a Sam Hill. But the EWS Enduro format allows many bikers to participate without "paying team". When these guys get into the top 10 in "one race" they have a chance to get hired (example Greg Callaghan and Cube. Before getting the contract Greg worked in winter and had the money for the races and lived in a camper...). If the gearbox bike has an advantage any of those bikers without contract could pick this bike...

Yes - very difficult to be repeatable on the podium - there a "rich" team is necessary. Yes.

But example: YT is a young company and they don't have the money for the top race bikers - but early on they started EWS. And quickly got once or twice onto the podium...Gave the brand a huge push.

And if the gearbox bike won't get into the top 10, at least one race, first year?

Don't see this as a problem. They have to try again. Guess people are fair and know how difficult the races are.

But I see these races as a big, big chance for new technology. If there is an advantage it will show up in these races.  Many very good bikers without contract in EWS. Give one of the #20 ... #30 bikers such a bike and it will show up if he moves "up" or "down" in the ranking.

Riders win races.....

the honda won 5 world cups in three years a shitload of money for a lot of PR thats what money gets you.

Do race wins sell bikes these days? Much as I like watching the DH on Red Bull TV it has no influence on what bikes I buy, not even the brand

And if the gearbox bike won’t get into the top 10, at least one race, first year?

I would say that it's entirely possible depending on the rider, injuries, punctures, mechanicals, etc.  Even with all that and it turns out that the gearbox bike is a bad bike then it proves just that.  It's a bad bike.  If a bike company that runs derailleur bikes doesn't make it into the top 10 does that mean that derailleurs are bad?

The companies currently making high pivot gearbox bikes are Peregrine and Deviate (as far as I know).  Sick Bicycles have one in the works but it's not clear if it's aimed at the Enduro racers or not.  The Zerode and effigear bikes aren't high pivot. IMO high pivot is the configuration that gearboxes can do that derailleurs can't (I know there have been some examples but there's a lot of complexity).

There has been more than 20 years of development by dozens of companies leading to the enduro bikes we have now.  There are two companies who have been developing high pivot gearbox bikes for all of two years.

@BruceWee: fully agree. Only some companies designed Enduro gearbox bikes - very valid point.

@Rubber_Buccanneer: same with me. I'am a trailbiker and no Enduro biker. One of my full suspension bikes is a Bossnut V2 and I'am completely happy with it. No races. No podium.

But: to get new technology into the market it will help to win. Especially when we talk about "Enduro". Enduro bikes are designed "around the EWS race tracks". An Enduro bike - in my understanding - is a race bike designed for Enduro races...

For this type of bikes: in my thinking very important to participate in EWS. And, post above: Zerode DH bikes win already races locally in NZ. DH bikes and Enduro bikes are designed to be fast. In this market niche, in my opinion: to get onto the podium is important.

And yes - if the Zerode gearbox Enduro bike doesn't win it's not a statement about "gearboxes" yet. But - for example - if Deviate Enduro starts getting good results... this would push the gearbox idea! And if none of the gearbox Enduros wins - at least a couple races - in the next years: this would be - for me at least - a statement that these Enduro bikes are not fast...

Still all open. In theory the suspension should work better with the gearbox. Key for an Enduro bike?

YT seem to sell quite a few Capras without having a top-level enduro-ist on their books.

Just sayin'.

@chakaping:

...this is a good one...

http://www.uci.ch/mountain-bike/ranking/

http://yt-mob.com/bike/

YT is a very young and still a small company. Roots are in downhill bikes.

Aaron Gwin is - with the YT downhill bike - the YT Tues CF Pro - the #1 in uci downhill ranking (2017). These rankings help YT to sell all their bikes - no matter if downhill or Enduro or trail bikes.

For sure!

My guess: they will slowly get better with EWS & Enduro race rankings as well.

And if not ... maybe the Capra isn't the greatest and fasted Enduro around? Right now they live from the Tues / downhill reputation...? (If they don't get into the top 10 for a couple EWS races in 2018 I will start wondering about the "Capra"...Is the YT Tues success really big enough for the Capra in the long run?)

But that's a side-track discussion. Sorry!

Got a Nicolai Ion GPI, love it, only bike I've had where I would consider selling the other bikes to fund a second pinion bike.

What is needed is for gearboxes become more affordable and get onto mid range bikes, then I thinks more manufacturers may come on board so we get the weight and price lower.

Gearbox and electric would be awsome 🙂

Andreas. you seem more than a little pre-occupied with YTs results in enduro.

Also YTs roots are not in Downhill. their roots are in Dirtjumping and then slopestyle. Which they till support in a pretty big way. Downhill, Enduro and then trail bikes came along later in YTs product lines.

The YT mob (UCI DH team) came about because of Aaron Gwin needing a team/sponsors he thought worthy of his achievements and potential. It was not put together by YT alone. But a management team owned by Martin Whitely.
Google him (or 23 degrees Sports Management). Martin has managed many of the worlds fastest DH racers and teams over the years.

I just want to go back to the cost / savings issue for a post

I have an MTB tandem.  Using 9x2 gearing I was getting thru 2 or 3 chains a year and one or two cassettes and sets of chainrings.  At lest a hundred a year in drivetrain parts often significantly more.

since getting the rohloff 5 years ago I have changed the chain once  still using the same chainring and rear sprocket.  Now I also changed my lube to a much better one which will have had some influence but the savings are real.  chains last longer as you can let them wear further as they are on fixed centres.  Rear sprockets are much more robust than cassettes and much cheaper.  I am now into profit ie the cost of the rohloff is less than the cost of all the drivetrain savings.

If you used more expensive drivetrains this cost saving would have occurred much earlier

Any talk of gearbox evolution is nonsense; gears and gearboxes have been refined over many years to a point where the gear geometry is as efficient as possible and the mechanical requirements for transferring torque are well known I.e. gearboxes are not going to get significantly lighter as they require a certain amount of meat to live.

Errmmm - I don't believe that is really true - its a cost / benefit equation.  I think there was someone blueprinting and lightening rohloffs that significantly reduced weight.  doubled the cost however

Motorcycle gearboxes have become much lighter and smaller - but that has taken the resources of large corporations over many years to do

Bicycle gearboxes are in very early stages of evolution yet.

I dont agree,  even standard gear system have evolved since the 90's.

The Pinion gearbox , Rohloff and Nuvinci hubs all have a slightly difference approach, the Pinion has already got lighter with the C.1 12 model with the use of magnesium housing, bound to be a few more tweeks to get pricing and weight even lower. The Kindernay has a different approach to current hub gears

<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Quite interested in the Nuvinci approach applied to a gearbox and Kindernay has some different approaches to the current hub gears 🙂 </span>

Using magnesium for the housing will lower the overall weight but ultimately the steel gears used need to be a certain size to withstand the loads. Using a lighter material for the gears would be higher cost whilst reducing the longevity of the teeth.

I don't think there is the drive (pun intended) to develop gearboxes for bicycles; they will always be heavier and less efficient* than a chain a derailleur.

And I can't believe a company like Shimano hasn't looked hard at gearboxes and concluded that for a majority of cycling requirements derailleurs are better.

*assumes a well maintained drive train

That's kind of like saying the derailleurs from the 60s couldn't be improved on and 5 gears was the limit.  You couldn't squeeze any more in because that would affect the wheel dish and, beside that, you would spend all your time making tiny adjustments to the lever to get them lined up properly.

Then someone came alone with cassette body and index shifting.

There is always room for marginal and not so marginal improvements.

This has turned out to be a much more interesting thread than I expected.

Taking the analogy with the development of conventional derailleur gear systems further, it could be argued that the performance has increased significantly in the 25 years I've been MTBing, but that the weight is broadly similar.

We've added bits like clutches while removing chinarings and front mechs, but you basically need a certain amount of metal.

Would reducing reliability reduce weight and cost?

Who needs a million miles service interval and billion mile lifespan when modern bikes only have a five year frame warranty?

We've already seen that some pinion owners are struggling to sell bikes partly because frame technology has moved on.

I see where you're coming from, but might reducing durability introduce more early failures - which could impact the rep of a brand, or gearboxes generally?

@geex, and "YT" discussion above: thanks. Will google for it. Side-track-discussion anyway...

others, gearbox-evolution: doubt that there will be no further evolution. But further evolution might be connected to more expensive materials - higher price so. See also: Aviation gearboxes and Formula 1 gearboxes are "tiny" and very low weight (compared to the power) - but cost a fortune.

Good point above, the "5 year" thing and issues to sell a Pinion bike for good money again. Personally like old bikes and like to rebuild old stuff. A 5 year old hardtail frame you nearly get "for free"... Bit sad so.

Don't understand why - but many people don't like their bikes after 5 years any more. Most bike manufacturers won't invest then into equipment which lasts twice this time...

My "convential" drivetrains don't last 5 years - but possible that I'am biking too much in mud. Possible that the standard stuff is designed for "standard" bikers and this 4-5 year life span ... to end then on the junk?

Many downsides of this "cycle". Advantage is rapid development in mountain bike technology. When people invest every 4-5 years the big bucks into a new bike ... this will push technology ahead. Five years ago most mountain bike frames were made for 2 inch rubber. Now you easily fit 2.6 inch... - and maybe have more fun?

https://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/world-exclusive-review-deviate-cycles-guide/amp/

My thoughts on the Deviate. I was very impressed and it worked really well for me. Nothing beats trying something to see if it works for you.

My “conventional” drivetrains don’t last 5 years – but possible that I’am biking too much in mud. Possible that the standard stuff is designed for “standard” bikers and this 4-5 year life span … to end then on the junk?

Those on here are the exception - we ride a lot and we wear stuff out.  I'd put good money that if you looked at all bikes sold, the majority never have many parts replaced.  The majority ride less often, fewer miles and only in good weather - standard kit doesn't wear out that quickly.  My old road bike was >8 years old and the only thing I'd replaced were the tyres - it was even still on the original brake pads. Road has always been secondary to me but I'd bet I still did more miles than the majority of buyers.

And I can’t believe a company like Shimano hasn’t looked hard at gearboxes and concluded that for a majority of cycling requirements derailleurs are better.

I'm guessing Shimano's calculation is that there isnt a big enough market for a gearbox due to the cost.  Same as their hub gears - the Alfine isn't a patch on the Rohloff but they can build it to a price where they sell enough to make it worthwhile.  The area where it looks viable to me is e-bikes - a combined motor and gearbox, centrally mounted, seems like a win.  There the weight penalty is much less important and you've already got a non-standard bike. It was originally where Pinion were headed but for some reason they've not got there yet.

E-bikes are an interesting comparison.  In a few years we're going to have a load of bikes with old, unfashionable frames, but Bosch motors attached that still have a lot of life in them.

The area where it looks viable to me is e-bikes – a combined motor and gearbox, centrally mounted, seems like a win. There the weight penalty is much less important and you’ve already got a non-standard bike.

And presumably (I've never ridden an e-bike) you can back it off mid-climb to shift, then get started again no problem.

Tangent discussion but was chatting to a friend the other day about the lack of integrated motor and gearbox, figured it'd be perfect for minimal maintenance city bikes.

since getting the rohloff 5 years ago I have changed the chain once  still using the same chainring and rear sprocket.  Now I also changed my lube to a much better one which will have had some influence but the savings are real.  chains last longer as you can let them wear further as they are on fixed centres.  Rear sprockets are much more robust than cassettes and much cheaper.  I am now into profit ie the cost of the rohloff is less than the cost of all the drivetrain savings.

I didn't really find this to be the case when I had a Rohloff hubbed MTB . I had an eccentric BB to tension the chain and was surprised that it needed adjusting every month . As adjusting involved rotating the BB slightly then tightening two spiked bolts that pierced the BB unit to hold it in place which I didn't want to do too many times so I ended up running 3 chains and swapped them every month and only adjusted the BB when all 3 chains had become loose . On top of that my hub developed play and had to be sent back to Germany twice to be fixed . They were very nice about it and fixed it free of charge but it was still inconvenient and there was a bit of play evident when I eventually sold the whole bike .

I didn't find the backing off the power to shift while going uphill to be an issue nor did I find shifting while stationary to be any real benefit , it's just a bit different . The big downsides for me were the drag , the amount of rear wheel punctures , although heavy rear end doesn't apply to mid mounted gearbox bikes which this thread was really about , and I just didn't enjoy riding the bike . I tried for a year or more to convince myself I liked it , having spent a load of money on it but it was never my first choice of bikes to ride so I eventually gave up and sold it which is when I realised one other benefit of the Rohloff  is that they don't half hold their value well .

One of the fundamental 'benefits' of the basic derailleur, that is often missed, and often un-appreciated by 'engineers' who claim to have invented a much better 'solution' is that the derailleur DOES NOT CARRY THE DRIVE LOADS.

This is significant, as sitting on the un-tensioned side of the chain, the entire drive loading is carried by the crank sprocket, the chain itself (in nearly pure tension (best use of material)) and the cassette.  This means the derailleur is very light for the (multiple) jobs it does:

1) it provides the ability to shift gears

2) it provides the ability to absorb differences in chain length for different gears

3) it provides the ability to absorb differences in chain length caused by suspension kinematics

4) It provides an easy "release" to allow simple, quick rear wheel removal (this is one of those things you don't appreciate till you don't have it, ime)

It's fundamentally pretty simple, highly robust, and shrugs off clogging and dirt etc  Yes, you can ride through so much muck it jams up, but usually a quick wash and all's well again.

It's really, really hard to replace all that with another solution, especially when you add cost, weight and user familiarity into the mix!

@maxtorque

I'd add maintainability to the list, while many will see an "exposed" drivetrain as a problem, it has the benefit of allowing access to clean/maintain or fix it, replace parts, etc as necessary...

Trail side repairs are not actually all that hard, I'd not fancy cracking a rohloff hub or pinion box open halfway up a muddy hill in Wales, but I could put up with rejoining a chain or fiddling with a mech...

@maxtorque:

very good points.

Derailleur: bit of "strange piece" of engineering. But with your point of "no drive loads" really hard to beat. You are right.

There was a chap we met out in italy who had a gearbox bike- I think a Taniwha, not sure- and he'd cracked the housing so it was leaking oil everywhere. He was desperately trying to fix it with epoxy resin so he could keep riding. I think I'd rather burst a mech tbh. Especially since I'd brought a spare mech

it was leaking oil everywhere

How long until gearbox sealant is a thing? Might make shifting or pedalling a little harder though.