http://www.christinibicycles.com/bikes-fullsus.php

Now I know there will be loads of it won't / you don't need it / but 15 years ag full sus "wasn't needed" and 15 gears was loads!

There is no doubt that 2 driven wheels will give more traction on slippy uphills.

So soon the Giants and Treks of this world will look at where product development is going and I'd be surprised if this isn't already on the radar??

Has it moved on much since 2001?

http://www.christinibicycles.com/tech-background.php

As long as they make a SS 29er version someone with more money than sense will buy one

call for bob

bob binns.

Would be nice as an option to flick on/off

There is no doubt that 2 driven wheels will give more traction on slippy uphills.

Yes, but how often is that really an issue, and since in that situation most of your weight is on the rear wheel, how much traction do you think you'll get from the front?

2wd mx enduro bikes are meant to be very, very good.

never tried one, look rad though.

Will never be successful for any mainstream company.

When would 2WD make a difference? Mud, sand: possibly. As has been said. almost all of your weight is on the rear wheel when climbing.

Anyone ever ridden one? I'll keep an open mind til I hear some feedback.

I notice it doesn't quote a weight anywhere.

Still, I'd like to see a proper review, make a change from reviewing a 'normal' Spesh/Trek/Giant/Orange/etc bike (because they're all basically the same now really, i.e. pretty good).

Seen a few reviews over the years and never been that positive, doesn't add a huge amount to the ride but is heavy, expensive and inefficient.
Very complicated solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Someone came into the shop with one during the summer looked like a GCSE project, I get that it works on an mx bike with plenty of power. But an mtb?

iditabike ,, might even help while pushing,, depending on losses in the system

did some work on 4wd touring cars ,, 10 years or so ago and they had the front wheels about 2% higher geared than the rear but with a one way bearing so under normal use it was only rear wheel drive but when the rear wheels spun then the drive was to the front wheels ,,

this may work for us ,, if you are climbing and the rear wheel slips then the front would drive keeping moving forward hold on whats the number of a patent agent

If there was a passive "clutch" between the front and rear wheel drives (like a freehub), such that if the rear wheel was going faster than the front (rear wheel has lost traction, say) and the clutch then engages so the front wheel then starts to drives I can see it may be of some benefit in some situations…. but it's alot of extra mechanical drag and weight to be carrying around all the time…..

I did have a twiddle round a car park on one many moons ago. A mate, who then worked for a bike company, had "acquired" one to try out (copy). I did think at the time it seemed quite heavy and 'draggy', but I fully accept this was hardly a long term, or even representative test of its potential benefits.

EDIT: Ade has faster fingers 😉

I notice it doesn't quote a weight anywhere.

um: CHRISTINI AWD System
– Handelbar mounted AWD engagement switch.
– Spiral-Drive aluminum bevel and pinion gears.
– Aluminum interlocking clutch.
– Tubular aluminum drive shafts.
– Coated steel universal joints.
– Stainless sealed cartridge bearings.
– Total AWD system weight is 2.3 lbs.

If you could make a small enough dynamo/powered front hub, and a light enough battery pack, it might be a nicer system.

Use regenerative braking to charge the pack, something to detct slip on the rear wheel and then shift torque to front wheel to balance out traction on the rare occasions it's needed. Or use as a turbo boost for hitting 'superbooters' 🙂

How about a hydro system similar to that developed by Ohlins? Did anyone see the eletric front hub on the Gadget Show made by Cytonex?

I do quite like the idea of it – adding 2.3lbs to a super-lightweight susser wouldnt be the end of the world either (expensive though!!)

I'm very intrigued – i'd like to have a go on some proper terrain.

I've heard they have a very different riding style though – pedalling in corners to take advantage of front wheel grip and the like…

Fairly sure I wouldnt like it. I rarely seem to suffer from lack of traction and if I do Im heavily over the rear (though you could alter that style if the frotn was driven of course!), the drive system will undoubtedly be as elastic as hell and so give odd oscillations in high torque variations and it adds complexity. Just looking for solutions to problems that don't really exist IMO.

The questions isn't wether or not you need it….

You don't really lots of gears

You don't really need front suspension

You don't really need ……..

The question is more to do with the fact that large companies don't let product development stagnate.

I'd say the question is whether it offers a benefit to enough riders for it to be commercially successful.

The answer appears to be "no".

I had a Mountain Bike Action from 94/95 and they had that in there…given that that was 15/16 years ago I'm guessing it's way off going mainstream…only difference on then and now is the full bounce frame (and that isn't part of the 2wd system)…

You know, I can only think of 2 places that I've ridden in the past 10 years where this would have helped at all. So combined thats a few hundred meters of trail in the thousands of miles of MTBing I've done.

I'd love it if ATGNI type start buying them though.