[Closed] 18 speed MTB gearboxes

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

good to see people having a go at it though

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

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.

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

It's 2x9 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.

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.

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 !

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

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

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.

How's it different to previous gearbox type things?

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.

With 1x10 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 1x10 ? 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 ?

Tina S - a hammerschmidt nearly fits a "normal" frame doesn't it ?

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.

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 [url= http://www.zerode.co.nz/ ]Zerode[/url] 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.

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?

Mmmm
£3150 for the frame
[img] [/img]

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

[img] [/img]

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 1x10 ? A fair bit less than 600% I would imagine.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Simon,

Did you have any luck with the hunt for 142x12 single speed hubs?

Andy

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. 😀

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Did you have any luck with the hunt for 142x12 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 [url= http://www.justridingalong.com/stans-notubes-ztr-singlespeed.html ]Stan's hub[/url] looks an option though -

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

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.

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....

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 [I]'AM' 'Enduro'[/I] 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 2x9 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...

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

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.

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 [I]'open source collaborative mechanical design'[/I] for bike stuff but the execution seldom seems to work out as well as it does for software...

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.

It looks like the concept has some considerable way to go before it's accepted in the marketplace - by that I mean that I'd consider buying a gearbox bike.

For starters, a case full of sturdy intermeshing gearwheels and bevels doesn't exactly scream "lightweight and efficient" at me, anecdotal experience of the Hammerschmidt system tells me that even relatively small frictional losses through planetary gears will be noticable.

Secondly, if it doesn't take off you're left with a bespoke frame requiring a bespoke transmission and bespoke seals which would raise doubts about potential lifespan due to lack of spare parts.

Thirdly, someone has raised a point about a CVT style gearbox being the way forward. I rather like the idea of that...

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.

Talking of trying things out anybody know if there will be a Helius AM Pinion to demo in the UK over the next couple of months.

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

You can get a Hope V2 floating rotor now 🙂
[url= http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/hope-tech-v2-ventilated-disc-brake-rotors-6-bolt-203-mm-prod22111/ ]V2 Rohloff floating rotor[/url][

bikes evolve, fat bars, seat posts, 7,8,9,10,11 gears

mostly retro-fittable bits of kit for existing bikes at their time of release then... Thanks for reinforcing my point for me... 😉

I'll agree that frames built around a gearbox is probably where we're headed ultimately, but you don't persuarde the majority consumers to bin their current perfectly good bike for a new expensive whirlygig overnight, you need a 'Gateway' product that shows the benefits in an affordable package, and that is very achievable in this instance...

Cookeaa, as I'll not be able to afford the legal fees in any way, shape or form to protect them, they will be in effect open source... Once I've finalised them

@cookea - you've basically described Alfine, there.

The trouble with building a gearbox that will fit any frame is that it will always be compromised.

I really like the look of this concept. Twistshift don't worry me, 18 gears sounds a good number - its a greater gear range than 3x9 but with small and even gaps. Efficiency is the real bugbear - if they can get that right it will be a help

PMJ, it would be expensive but I bet you could get a standard bb & attachment machined up to replace a gearbox should it ever stop being produced.

TJ, is that more or less than the compromise we live with now due to existing product designs?

Ps, I'll sort those shifters when I get home

compromise with current gearbox designs - they either live in the rear hub with weight distribution and shifting issues or in the frame with 2 chains

@cookea - you've basically described Alfine, there.

maybe its one possible solution to the whole problem which has it's own +/-ives... there are others

The trouble with building a gearbox that will fit any frame is that it will always be compromised

All bikes have compromises of some sort, the real trick is making the set of compromises one that people can live with and would pay for over another given set of compromises...

that pinion ain't perfect and requires some compromises in service, like shifting under load, weight and possibly gear box efficiency? better than another AM bike with a 2x10 XT drivetrain? maybe...

The trouble with building a gearbox that will fit any frame is that it will always be compromised.

This, except replace 'comprimised' with '****'.

Where would you put it? Under the BB, fine as long as everyone rides arround on steel hardtails with identical downtube diameters so it has something to clamp to.

And how many riders of hardtails (so frames costing £100-£400) are going to want to spend £2k on gears (and you still need cranks) when SLX is only £250.

The people with money to spend will spec them on new bikes, the people who dont will use mechs and cassetts like normal. It might trickle down to an XTR pricepoint, and become fairly widespread, but I can't see it dropping much below that, look at the cost of an alfine 11 Vs XTR, and alfine is definately the Deore to rohloff's XT.

All bikes have compromises of some sort, the real trick is making the set of compromises one that people can live with and would pay for over another given set of compromises...

Sums it up, the advantages of a gearbox are

*centralised mass
*ground clearance (no mech, and possibility to run tiny chainrings)
*low maintenance

Try and retrofit that to an existing bike and you end up with less ground clerance as it would probably need to sit under the BB somehow. And you'd add a lot of weight as the box would still need 2 shafts but now you've got a third (the cranksaft) and primary drive chain adding weight and maintenance.

TINAS, the people who like ihg will go for it and clamps can come in any size & shape.

Plus current ihg don't cost 2k so why should any other retrofit gearbox?

You'd probably have less chain links on a twin system than a standard setup, ergo, less chance of failure when you consider no side to side loads

You can get a Hope V2 floating rotor now
V2 Rohloff floating rotor[

I don't like their prices much. Basic Hope/Rohloff disc £61! Wiggle list those at £26rrp.

Floating vented rotor £91!

People get too hung up on the retro fit thing

I'd go for different examples but the argument is sound -
- suspension forks. Longer travel suspension forks.
- rear suspension (the Thudbuster was the 'compromise')
- Disc brakes
- 29ers

Even on a Nicolai build the frame is usually less than half the total build cost. On a mass market bikes it's probably less than 10%.

Efficiency is the real bugbear

TINAS, the people who like ihg will go for it clamps

can come in any size & shape

Yes, but the gearbox is going to need to be mounted pretty rigidly to the frame, which means close fitting, which means following the shape of the frame.

If it hund down under the BB (and therefore below the level of the Bash guard, how long untill someone bottoms one out on a rock and writes it off?

Plus current ihg don't cost 2k so why should any other retrofit gearbox?

A 10 speed hammerschmit would be great as a retro fit option, but isn't available (or in my mind even possible to package). And anything below the BB is comprimised in terms of packageing and protection, and anything above the BB is limited to hardtails or a very small number of FS designs. And both designs would need a primary drivetrain from cranks to gearbox, a secondary drive back to a gear running cocentric with the cranks, and a tertiary drive to the rear wheel (otherwise it's going to clash with the chainstays), hardly maintenance free? and even if you develop all that, you've got just a few years to make your money back as the people looking to spend that level of moeny are probably the type to buy a new frame every 2-3 years.

I think this ideas going to be either a 'standard' mounting, or bespoke gearbox/frame packages (no reason the internals couldn't be licenced and put inside different frames though).

Edit: this makes my point much more clearly.

rear suspension (the Thudbuster was the 'compromise')

I took 2k from your example.

I'm thinking of ways to make it work, you're thinking of ways it won't.

I can put equal counter arguments to all your points but I'm at work so I'll do it when I get home instead of on my phone

I don't like their prices much. Basic Hope/Rohloff disc £61! Wiggle list those at £26rrp.

Floating vented rotor £91!

😀 The floating vented rotors are exspensive (even 6 bolt versions) which is why I live with the standard version.
The company is pricy but I guess thats down to be being one of the few that stock parts and spares for a range of IGH.

Any thoughts on demo's for the Helius AM Pinion ? 🙂

Efficiency - I hope they can get it down to similar to conventional gears but its tricky. the pinion gearbox at lest is not planetary gears son stands a chance but gear trains always absorb some energy

gear trains always absorb some energy

That's my experience of Alfine and Rholoff... going back to normal drivetrains on lighter bikes was a revelation 😆

Planetary gears as in rolf and alf are worse than conventioal gearboxes as in pinion design tho

TINAS - Eh? what?

Gearbox under the BB?
New set of cranks?
10spd Hammerschmidt?

Where'd you get all of that from?

I would propose a basic spec based around providing a retro-fittable gearbox that could live [I]somewhere[/I] inside the nominal free space of the front trinagle of say a 14" or larger, 68/73mm wide Euro BB, hardtail frame, and would be mounted to the BB shell and/or seat tube clamp(s) (Sorry no space for bottle cages now, first compromise is that you buy a camelbak, die of thirst or drink from puddles).

The drivetrain would be a 3 stage affair based around the following loose requirements:

the Gearbox will accept input (by chain, belt or pinion gearing from a 'standard' set of cranks (104/64 PCD HT2 or similar, 5 arm compact if you wanted perhaps).

The gearbox (would by whatever means the designer(s) chose) provide a gearing range at least equivalent to that of a 1xN 11-36 cassette with a 32t chainring and ideally greater (again in whatever increments and whatever number of gears the designer felt appropriate/practicable.

The Gearbox would output drive to the rear wheel by chain or belt drive (whichever the designer(s) felt most appropriate).

Gear change shall be affected by use of a handlebar or frame mounted shifter, which may be of any configuration the Designer(s) choose (Twist, trigger, thumbshifter - indexed or friction)...

There's a starting point anyone who can't dream something up to meet that must be completely devoid of any mechanical imagination...

The Compromises with it would be obvious no doubt, COG may be more central but wouldn't be low, there would be limited frame compatibility of course but you can design it to work with the largest practicable range of frames and current standards, you would be limiting your market to hardtails, but seeing as the majority of bikes are Hardtails that's probably not as much of a limit as inventing a new bespoke geabox mounting standard (again)...

I'm thinking of ways to make it work, you're thinking of ways it won't.

+1

It's quite easy to pick holes in most things, quite another to think your way around them...

Helius AM Pinion demo

Not any time soon - supply of gearboxes has been delayed so it's looking like first bikes with customers in August/September. We've been prioritising customer bikes rather than getting one as a demo for the moment but will be looking at getting one in (although if it's for me it will be in XL).

im just quietly hoping that somewhere in the recesses of shimano R&D that a team is battling away at designing a gearbox that will fit inside an extra large BB - 12 speed would be plenty imho

they are the only people that could realistically make it happen and have the industry design bike around it

guess ill have to wait a few more years then

Ok that's a shame, and XL is a fail as I believe I need a medium.
Don't normally demo bikes but I think in this case I would like to just to see if sizing and function match expectations/cost ratios. 🙂

Thnaks you for the feedback.

Jes - Moonglu in Ripon are planning on running a Large demo (and they're in the first delivery) which would let you judge function.

Sizing will be the same as the regular frame design (Pinion is now an option on all Argon and Helius frames) so won't be a problem for you to ensure you get the correct size.

I'd go for different examples but the argument is sound -
- suspension forks. Longer travel suspension forks.
- rear suspension (the Thudbuster was the 'compromise')
- Disc brakes
- 29ers

Yes, my examples were rubbish, I was in a hurry, but frames do evolve all the same. As well as your examples there's ISCG, Funny headset sizes, new materials. . .
People who are likely, and able, to buy a Pinion compatible frame aren't going to be too bothered about buying a new frame. As I said, it's the cost that's the crucial factor.

Moonglu in Ripon are planning on running a Large demo (and they're in the first delivery) which would let you judge function.

Thanks again, I will keep an eye out for dates.

Edit: Wrong topic 😳

Cookeaa, your reply is almost exactly what I was going to.

Kimbers, limiting something to fit a standard that it was never designed for is the first rule to making things fail. they should not be designing something to fit in an extra large BB. Sram have the I-motion 9 and the Hammerschmidt under their belt so I would have thought they'd be first out of the blocks, not Shimano.

Simon / Nicknoxx, all of those examples (except the 29er & rear suspension) can all be fitted and removed without any bother, you dont need anything built in into the frame from the start (discs are a slight grey area) and if you didn't like them you can revert back to what you used to use with no bother so I don't really see what you're getting at.

Pinion is now an option on all Argon and Helius frames

Including the hardtails?

Andy

limiting something to fit a standard that it was never designed for is the first rule to making things fail.

Gets it!!!

The Compromises with it would be obvious no doubt, COG may be more central but wouldn't be low, there would be limited frame compatibility of course but you can design it to work with the largest practicable range of frames and current standards, you would be limiting your market to hardtails, but seeing as the majority of bikes are Hardtails that's probably not as much of a limit as inventing a new bespoke geabox mounting standard (again)...

Exactly, so the 'comprimises' in getting an after market universally compatible gearbox to work rule out pretty much all of the advantages with the exception of no mech, (but you have added 2 maybe 3 chains).

And the point about the majority riding hardtails defeats itself.

Firstly the majority won't buy it, they can't afford to, however good it is only a handfull of people can buy a £2000 drivetrain.

And what proportion of hardtail riders do so for any of the following reasons:
a) efficiency
b) lightness
c) cheepness
d) nicheness

a and b won't buy a gearbox regardless of what format it's in, that last 5% efficiency matters too much in an XC race.
c won't buy it
d will buy it, but would probably buy a niche frame with a gearbox mounted properly.

Think if it this way, I could buy a on-one hardtail for £150

I could buy a hardtail with a geabox (if on-one made one) for ~£2000

Or I could buy a gearbox that would cost at best the same, or more likely a lot more as it's going to need all kinds of fixings and bodge it into my current frame and weigh more.

I think the intended market is far more likely to swallow buying £3000 full susser frames (which already exist, and you're effectively getting a free drivetrain with that) than £2000 add ons which don't offer all the advantages. Especially when they can get a rohloff already.

Edit: how much is this gearbox? pinkbike seem to think it's a 2000euro add on, the nicolai site puts it s smidge over 1000euro (which makes it a bargain IMO).

Price is looking like a c£1400 upcharge on top of the frame cost.

Your a,b,c,d list is missing the most important factor; e) Fit and forget.

That would be the most important thing for me. I'd happily trade a little inefficiency for knowing my bike is going to work exactly the same for a long time without having to worry about indexing gears, stretching cables, rings wearing, chains wearing etc etc.

Without riding one, I expect that you'll find that it's 5% less efficient than a chain setup (for example) but that 5% is only 20% of the drivetrain losses, the other 80% being the interface between tyre and ground.

The box design looks fairly easy for anyone to design a bike around, it just bolts to the bottom of the bike. I wonder if there's any mileage in Pinion making custom cases that are structural for disipating shock loads for designs like the Trek Fuel. That could allow slightly lighter tubes.

Looks very interesting and I'd love one of those Nicolai's!

gears are a compromise over singlespeed regarding maintenance but people put up with it, suspension forks are a compromise over rigids regarding maintenance but people put up with it. why wouldn't they put up with supposedly more maintenance (though I disagree there would be any) for the benefits of a retrofit gearbox? The design concept I have uses just one more bearing and although I've not measured it, I'm estimating pretty much the same overall chain length as a derailleur set-up. hardly more maintenance.

there are loads more categories of cyclist than a b c & d that you mention above.

I was saying there would be less maintenance, which is a massive plus for me. Sorry, I was talking at cross-purposes as I didn't realise you'd moved on to a retrofit kit rather than the Pinion one.

Anyway, on your idea, obviously without seeing it it's hard to comment, but I'd imagine I'm the sort of person that would be most amenable to the right idea.

The thing is I can't see a pressing need for it so I'd be in no rush to upgrade despite how much I like the idea. I can't see I'd bother upgrading an existing frame when I can wait until the next time I buy a new frame and have it all properly integrated.

My post was at TINAS not you, sorry for confusion

e) Fit and forget.

That would be the most important thing for me. I'd happily trade a little inefficiency for knowing my bike is going to work exactly the same for a long time without having to worry about indexing gears, stretching cables, rings wearing, chains wearing etc etc.

That's pretty much my experience of Rohloff. I know there are a few people who've had trouble but for most of us it's maintenance free for over a year at a time. Sprocket/chain/chainring do wear but not in the problematic way they do on a conventional system and those parts will still wear on the Pinion.

Pinion is now an option on all Argon and Helius frames