Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 109 total)
  • 18 speed MTB gearboxes
  • HermanShake
    Free Member

    MORE ON PB HERE

    Looks like it’s got some way to go before becoming more relevant, but interesting none the less.

    scaredypants
    Full Member

    Way too many gears for me, I’d rather they made it smaller & lighter

    good to see people having a go at it though

    TuckerUK
    Free Member

    Saw the original article on this, as you say, interesting. However, cost and compatibility are going to be it’s major hurdles I think.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    rwc03
    Free Member

    Looks good to me, weight in a better place and less maintenance, just need to get the compatibility sorted. I think if it’s less than an xtr/saint drive-train they should have enough takers to get them going.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    [qoute]Way too many gears for me, I’d rather they made it smaller & lighter[/quote]

    It’s 2×9 so dropping a cog loses you 2 gears, and you still have the shafts/casing etc so presumably losing a gear doesn’t really make enough difference to the weight to be worthwhile? It’d shed some weight, but probably not 1/18th of it for each lost gear.

    2.7kg apparently (inc cranks and BB)

    SLX groupset is 2.1kg according to this http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/slx-and-xt-weights

    0.6kg seems a fair trade off for an XC spread of gears, massive ground clearance, zero chance of losing the chain, centralised weight (this feels like a huge difference on the SS so probably even more so on a FS bike) and no mud related reliability issues.

    jameso
    Full Member

    Way too many gears for me, I’d rather they made it smaller & lighter

    I just want a 5-7 speed Rohloff. ~250% range, bigger jumps are ok, less weight, less extreme-gearing efficiency losses and maybe less cost is the aim. Like Alfine 8 but lighter and even more durable.

    scaredypants
    Full Member

    somewhere between 4 and 8 gears would do me just fine

    2 kilos, maybe less ?

    then all we’ve got to do is fit it inside a sensible frame (BB30 or something ?) and I’m laughing !

    jes
    Free Member

    Just spent ages looking at the Nicolai version, as an IGH fan this is the most exciting development I’ve seen for ages.

    njee20
    Free Member

    Agree on the ‘less gears and weight’ thing, looks interesting. How’s it different to previous gearbox type things?

    thepodge
    Free Member

    Someone has done a nine speed but I couldn’t work out who.

    Gearboxes either hub or frame mounted are the way forwards

    Running an 8 speed alfine here in the Peak I’d have to agree that 18 seems an overkill but then I’d guess the smart money is in developing different ranges for different applications

    The main issue for me is retrofitting, if people can’t try it unless they buy a new frame then uptake is going to be slow.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    How’s it different to previous gearbox type things?

    I think it’s considerably smaller, lighter and cheeper (down to about £2000 from about £3000) than the nicolai G-boxx (which IIRC shared a standard size with a diamondback gearbox?).

    The main issue for me is retrofitting, if people can’t try it unless they buy a new frame then uptake is going to be slow.

    Can’t see it happening, it’ll be like suspension, you can’t (funny looking manitou add on for the 90’s excepted) add it to a hardtail, but it’s still popular. I reckon if you could buy a frame with this fitted for under about £3500 it’d be really popular (with people who spend £3500 on AM frames, where GeeTee78 when you need his oppinion?).

    With 1×10 becoming more popular, but limited by the size of the smallest and biggest sprocket, I think the one place that hub or frame gearboxes could surpass derailleurs would be a lightweight, wide range of ratios.
    What’s the range on a 1×10 ? A fair bit less than 600% I would imagine.
    I wonder if they could leave half the gears to cut the weight down and still have a 600% 9 speed box ?

    scaredypants
    Full Member

    Tina S – a hammerschmidt nearly fits a “normal” frame doesn’t it ?

    bm0p700f
    Free Member

    Well I am sure pionion would make a gearbox with less speeds if there’s becomes popular. With that gear sp[read it must be aimed at folk who live near proper mountains, not folk like me who live in the flast of east anglia.

    I like the idea and one day I will have one.

    thepodge
    Free Member

    Can’t see it happening, it’ll be like suspension, you can’t (funny looking manitou add on for the 90’s excepted) add it to a hardtail, but it’s still popular. I reckon if you could buy a frame with this fitted for under about £3500 it’d be really popular (with people who spend £3500 on AM frames, where GeeTee78 when you need his oppinion?).

    The Fanes complete bike is 4000 euro so a hardtail should easily be doable at a “reasonable” price.

    because you cannot add things to existing bikes easily I think more hubs and chainsets need to be developed. you need to ease people into the idea.

    you also need frame builders who can design a bike round a gearbox / mech-less system. People like Zerode are working from a blank sheet but that Fane and the Nicolai (which surprises me) seem to be just sticking them on the normal frame designs.

    The Fanes bike is 4000 euro so a hardtail should easily be doable at a “reasonable” price.

    HermanShake
    Free Member

    I’d like to see either more affordable, strong hub gears or a large standardised BB shell which can take different range gearboxes running the same rear sprocket and front chainring. Potentially one you could open up to change to your liking could be more versatile?

    The cranks could be something along the lines of a splined hollowtech, allowing the swapping of different types/brands to suit either weenies or gnarr-radders.

    If the technology improves (or is it good enough already?) this could be mated to a belt drive system for more mudlessness and stealth.

    HOPE, can you sort this out please? :mrgreen:

    deus
    Full Member

    Mmmm
    £3150 for the frame

    thepodge
    Free Member

    As you can see from the Nicolai pic above, getting it all in a new standard bb shell will be difficult, you’ll be moving more towards a Mountain Drive or Hammerschmidt design for that to happen.

    I think they really missed a trick by not making the spiders on the Hammerschmidt the main geared parts, that way you could change gearing ratios by changing chainrings.

    I fully agree that lighter better hubs are a step in the right direction.

    The problem with a belt is that it currently cannot bend back on its self so you still need fixed drive lengths which none of these gearbox frame designs are addressing.

    I’d really like a 5″ one of these, possibly with an alfine 11, but the beauty is that any hub gear can be made to work in this frame from a Sturmy archer 3 speed to a Rolhoff touring one

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Mmmm
    £3150 for the frame

    They’re appealing to the £2k+ frame market anyway, so it’s only a £2k frame + £1k XTR groupset. I agree there should be more of a standard though* and interchangeable cranks (and probably axle/BB) to allow for serial upgraders and I’m guessing formt he looks of them that those crank arms aren’t light?

    *I disagree that it should be circular though, a flat surface would be easiest, but not very efficient use of space or lightweight or stiff. Looking at the motorcycle insustry they went from seperate gearbox’s to unit construction, so maybe we’ll see the same in MTB, a few manufacturers making all the gearboxes to begin with and continuing for the smaller brands, then the big boys (spesh/trek/giant) doing their own thing and building frame and gearbox’s together, which would shed a big chunk of weight as the caseing could be structural.

    What’s the range on a 1×10 ? A fair bit less than 600% I would imagine.

    11-36 is 327% So yes 600% is too much probbably, but my point was, is there really any weight to be saved in using less gears, there’s undoubtebly some, but is it enough to bother producing 2 or three gearboxes with 14, 16 and 18 all weighing say 50-100g(assuming 2.7kg breaks down to 1kg cranks and axle, a bit for the case and layshaft and <100g per ‘gear’) less than each other and costing considerably more due to smaller volumes, or just making an 18 speed box whih to soem people is 150g too heavy but cheeper as you only have to make one model?

    It’s never going to be lighter than conventional dereilieurs and cassetts, otherwise roadies would have expored the idea more, it’s market is going to be AM/enduro and DH where ground clerance and reliability are key rather than lightweight and efficiency which are the main sellign points of the dereilieur system.

    thepodge
    Free Member

    Fully agree with above

    My only concern with 18 gears as you don’t have to use them all is that the range will be too close together meaning you’ll never really shift one gear, always two. The pink bike review hints at this saying along the lines of you don’t always notice you’ve changed.

    Also my own ham fistedness in that depending on how many degrees of rotation equates to one gear I may forever be over shifting by twisting too much.

    Obviously one kind of counteracts the other

    Have you ridden a Rohloff, thepodge ?
    Overshifting isn’t really a problem, the clicks are quite positive.
    18 gears is more than is needed for a mountain bike though.
    I rarely shift one gear at a time when off road.
    It’s fine on the road when I want to match my ideal cadence to my road speed, but off road, it’s a handful up or down without counting.

    thepodge
    Free Member

    Nope, I’ve never used a Rohloff. My only experience of Gripshift or similar is a 7 speed many many years ago and I wasn’t a fan for a few reasons.

    Only having 8 gears at the moment I don’t get much chance to shift more than one gear at a time before I run out, hence my initial thoughts.

    jes
    Free Member

    Looking at the numeric steps on the shifter and the size, the throw on the shifter looks very similiar to the Rohloff.
    I think 16 gears for AM use will be spot on, I have to under gear the Rohloff to achieve a fat boy grinder gear for climbs.

    I just need to work out how I can buy the Nicolai frame.

    simons_nicolai-uk
    Free Member

    I’m looking forward to the extra range. Using 38/16 on a Rohloff there are a few times when a higher or lower gear would be useful. There’s going to be a weight penalty of over a Kg for this BUT the weight distribution should be fantastic.

    Always interesting to read the ‘pre-ride’ criticisms. I’ve never found it a problem but have heard people complain that the steps on a Rohloff are too large.

    compositepro
    Free Member

    I like gearboxes

    Im fully of the opinion however that the bike companies are missing a trick It seems like they are sat quite happily on their laurels and sticking drivetrain components from either sram or shimano on a frame that hasnt changed in concept for 100 years.

    gboxx failed for a pretty obvious reason not so much cost but more to do with its integration limitations

    and pinion will probably maybe quite possibly fail because they want frame manufacturers to stick with their standard mounting system which people will only do because they want a gearbox on their bike in a similar fasion to gboxx ,but A bit of an apple and orange comparison here but does a gearbox from an Audi fit a Ford? auto manufacturers and motorcycle manufacturers dont make their parts interchangeable with each other so if gearboxes were to go mainstream on bikes why would you want the same gearbox on you model that company B can put on theirs. If they got off their arse with the amazing design engineers ???they have it would be relatively easy to do your own so the hype wars could take on a whole new angle when they start with the our gearbox is better than yours

    The only negatives are that its too small a market for anyone to care right now but thats what they said about ebikes and now big companies are climbing all over to get the latest battery systems to drive fancy motors that promise x y z

    All that money in R&D they supposedly spend by rehashing last years frame by a few grammes isnt a game changer what might make more sense is to license (if they dont have the knowledge to circumvent pinions patents quite easily considering gang gears and thru shaft selectors have been used in at least two f1 gearboxes)the gearbox clusters and put them in a structural housing integrated with the frame.

    The first gearbox bike we looked at about 18 years ago concept from BCD and has been copied or remodeled by various companies, throwing hub gears into a frame isnt new but why keep reinventing the wheel .One reason that sticks out is that you can change gear without moving WOW

    The pinion internals could be made half the weight they are at this time but im told they dont have the cash to invest in doing this as they need to get this onto bikes

    im sure someone will come along with an integrated lighter CVT system soon

    ratherbeintobago
    Full Member

    Simon,

    Did you have any luck with the hunt for 142×12 single speed hubs?

    Andy

    nicolaisam
    Free Member

    I think that the gearbox idea is the way forward.
    yearly oil change,sounds good,perfect chain line,only thing is it could do with some lighter cranks for xc/trail riders.
    I think Pinion are looking into electronic/hydraulic or lever shifters for there system as well as the twist grip version.
    This is the future as far as i am concerned. 😀

    JAG
    Full Member

    Nicolaisam +1

    Less cleaning, longer life, perfect chain line and almost no maintenance – it’s got to be the way forward.

    I do think getting standards in place is the next step – that way people can start making suitable frames and everyone will know they’ll work.

    rockhopperbike
    Full Member

    Liking the idea of a gearbox.

    as for interchangeability you can get a vw gearbox (or whatever) to fit a ford (or whatever) you usually need an adaptor – so I am sure this could be repeated for bikeboxes, maybe one way to get the thing started is to make a standard derailiuer(sp) frame, but make the BB area sort of a universal area(badly described!) to accept either a bb30 system or a gearbox assembly- I guess this would need a “standard” establishing for the mounting, but that aside it could work, as this would allow one frame to cater for the old style mechs etc, and the same frame upgradeable to a gearbox. thinking the mounting area could be a skeleton affair where the bb/bearbox are structural members.

    orangeboy
    Free Member

    Think the stans 3.30 single speed hub will work with there 142 conversion kit. But will have to check Monday

    Sorry bit off topic.

    thepodge
    Free Member

    Considering there are hardly any gearboxes on the market and mountain bikings love of standards. I think another standard for gearboxes would be restricting development far too early.

    Plus they tend to be way bigger and not cylindrical so very unlikely to fit in a multi purposes bb shell.

    One of the big boys need to get on this, they have the money and the power to get it into the mainstream

    simons_nicolai-uk
    Free Member

    I’m fully of the opinion however that the bike companies are missing a trick It seems like they are sat quite happily on their laurels and sticking drivetrain components from either sram or shimano on a frame that hasnt changed in concept for 100 years

    mountain bikings love of standards

    There’s a good interview with Mike Burrows (designer of the Lotus carbon monocoque frame that Chris Boardman rode in Barcelona) here http://thebikeshow.net/burrows-on-the-bicycle-part-one/ . He talks about the frustration of working in an industry where, in effect, the manufacturers are beholden to their main supplier for innovation – Shimano restrict technological advances and as a bike designer you can do little more than tweak colours and graphics. Also good on conservatism of the UCI.

    Making things in small volumes is expensive – Nicolai push the envelope but it adds a lot of cost. Karl struggled to find a way to get the G-Boxx 2 design into production at an affordable (read saleable) price. Working with a modified Rohloff wasn’t a cheap solution either.

    A few of the mainstream manufacturers are large enough to push at the edges – think Gary Fisher with custom trail forks on his ‘genesis’ (?) geometry, Specialized Brain shocks.

    Pinion are bringing this to market at a pretty competitive price. Their future plans include a version with an integrated motor for e-bikes which will help their overall volumes as that market is expanding fast and an ‘all in one’ drivetrain would be a big win.

    The pinion internals could be made half the weight they are at this time but im told they dont have the cash to invest in doing this

    I don’t believe this at all – source? Strong/Light/Cheap comes to mind. Shaving weight whilst maintaining reliability is not trivial – Rohloff haven’t managed it yet. Shimano’s hubs are cheap but weigh as much as Rohloff but have 60% of the gear range and IME reliability isn’t there yet.

    auto manufacturers and motorcycle manufacturers don’t make their parts interchangeable

    Actually, they increasingly seem to share engines and platforms. Regardless – volumes and revenues are of a completely different scale.

    I think Pinion are looking into electronic/hydraulic or lever shifters for there system as well as the twist grip version.

    All possible but I really don’t get the resistance to “GripShift”. It’s neat on the bars(less stuff hanging off) and there are WC XC racers using it. For Rohloff/Pinion the pull/pull cables with indexing at the hub give really good reliability. Anything that replaces it is likely to be heavier and more expensive.

    simons_nicolai-uk
    Free Member

    Did you have any luck with the hunt for 142×12 single speed hubs?

    er. Not yet. Nicolai don’t offer 142mm yet but I couldn’t find any 135mm/bolt through SS hubs and Hope are not interested in small custom runs.

    On the Nicolai you could order with a QR rear rather than bolt through as it’s way stiff enough with QR. I reckon you’d save a bit of weight and end up with a much stronger (less dished) rear wheel which would outweigh any disadvantages.

    That Stan’s hub looks an option though –

    plus
    http://www.notubes.com/12x135mm-Conversion-for-ZTR330330Ti-Hub-P942C44.aspx

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    I really don’t get the resistance to “GripShift”. It’s neat on the bars(less stuff hanging off) and there are WC XC racers using it.

    True, but WC racer’s probably arent the market for a gearbox that weighs 500g more than dereilieurs, I reckon even DH riders would probably run two bikes, one with dereilieurs for pedaly courses and one with a gearbox for rocky courses. That is unless the transmission losses are comparable to those of a conventional mech, which seems unlikely.

    The advantages (as I see it) are ground clearance, mass centralisation and reliability.

    simons_nicolai-uk
    Free Member

    WC racer’s probably arent the market for a gearbox

    Badly expressed point by me. I don’t get the ‘I’d never have a bike with any form of “Gripshift” even if there were numerous other advantages’ thing.

    Reminds me of the person who told me they could never ride a Rohloff as you can’t get floating disc roters for them….

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    TBH this is the direction that Gearboxe equiped bikes should have been going from day one, that is to say a range of gears fitted to a bike designed to usable for General Riding ‘AM’ ‘Enduro’ call it what you will but a bike that has some broader appeal and applications. Quite Why Gearbox bikes have been primarily aimed at DH/Freeride bikes and the larger majority of MTBers have been ignored is a bit of a mystery IMO…

    I’d agree that 18 gears is perhaps too many, comparing it to a 2×9 setup is fine but given the duplication you find on any 2xN drivetrain, while pinion’s box is apparently sequential, I think something more like ~12 gears would be sensible; roughly equivalent to the current 1xN Drives with one extra tall gear for Flat/roads and one, maybe two bailout gears at the other end…

    Unfortunately I reckon a twist shifer will put a good chunk of people off if they could come up with some form of trigger it would be a definate winner…

    There’s alot of weighty looking pinions in that box too, the article doesn’t mention weight, but I think its a safe bet that it doesn’t save a huge amount…

    Given that it needs a compatable frame and there looks to be lots of expensive machined parts used I don’t think it’s going to be a cheap bike, Gearboxes on bikes won’t take off until their cost, weight and gearing range are on an approximate par with current deraileur based drivetrains, they’re still a bit short on this…

    There’s a couple of other concepts though that I think are worth exploring if you want to get wider buy and adoption of Gearboxes on MTBs:

    1- a Gear box that can be retrofitted to the majority of existing hardtails… Think about all the various HTs currently knocking about With a nice big empty space in the front triangle, if a gearbox could be cost-effectively retrofitted to most these I think it would go a good way towards convincing people that they’re worth buying and fitting…

    2- The ‘Deraileur in a Box’ concept. most peoples gripe with mechs isn’t so much how they work but more their vulnerability to damage and exposure to crap/the elements, enclose and protect it is a box and these concerns go away… There’s been a couple of notable attempts at it I think there’s still milage in this and it’s a sufficiently mature, well understood technology that it wouldn’t be such a quantum leap…

    The likes of Pinion and Nicolai are pretty much transfixed by the destination (all singing all dancing gearbox FS bikes) the real breakthrough will be the bit of kit that places the functionality of a gearbox within the means of the majority of riders not the £3k+ limited edition dandy horses currently for sale…

    thepodge
    Free Member

    Fully agree with the post above, retrofitting parts is how you break this market.

    I have an idea sketched up that will address item one above but it requires a you replacing two of your existing drivetrain parts.

    Hopefully with the boss off this week I can get it into a state where normal people can understand it not just people who can see inside my brain. Then all I need to do is convince my mate to go halves on a stall at bespoke Bristol to launch it just before some megacorp rips us off

    Nicknoxx
    Free Member

    People get too hung up on the retro fit thing, bikes evolve, fat bars, seat posts, 7,8,9,10,11 gears, etc. All that needs to happen is for one major manufacturer to make frames available at under £1k and bingo, everyone will make one.

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    thepodge – you’re not the only one with lots of great ideas…

    personally I’m idea rich but time and resource poor, I’ve always liked the idea of ‘open source collaborative mechanical design’ for bike stuff but the execution seldom seems to work out as well as it does for software…

    thepodge
    Free Member

    Eh?

    Fat bars & seatposts & gears are retrofitting parts. If either of those two required you to buy a whole new frame that no other parts would fit, do you think the uptake would have been just as quick?

    Or… Do you think that because people could try them without buying a new frame may have had a hand in how popular they have become?

    Plus in this fantasy world where a frame & gearbox is doable for a grand, xtr would only cost 10p so magically produced bike would still be expensive.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 109 total)

The topic ‘18 speed MTB gearboxes’ is closed to new replies.