[Closed] Bike technology that should have worked?

Gearboxes

I had some inverted forks back in the 90's. "Hanson" I think they were called?

Went straight back to the shop as their for/aft play was shocking straight out of the box. Got some Manitou 2's instead. Loved those.

It did take off, but then it landed again- uturn forks. Brilliant idea, a properly adjustable travel fork that wasn't just a crappy climbing mode. I had a set in my Soul, and it really was like having 2 versions of hte same bike, a short travel xc dagger and a 130mm trailbike hammer. But apparently turning a little dial was too hard so TALAS won that particular war, despite being shite.

To be fair, improvements in bike design took away a lot of the desire for "climb mode" but my Solaris could totally benefit from a good old u-turn coil fork.

U-Turn forks worked well (I'm still running some), but were expensive and I think the geometry changes recently probably made it less useful.

Flippy-shift was a way of bundling Shimano brakes with drivetrains. People wanted to mix and match components.

Low-normal derailleurs probably had benefits but experienced riders were used to the existing direction and had no interest in changing. Maybe if they'd managed to make a shifter that worked in the opposite direction so that riders didn't have to reprogram themselves - but that might have been difficult because you'd have to have a lot more leverage for the finger lever than before.

URT has worked in certain circumstances, Mr Big ST10's were pretty well rated.

Also rocking some U-Turn Rev 426's, brilliant forks.

My submission though is Truvativ's Hammerschmidt cranks. Just saw someone fit a set to a singlespeed slopestyle bike and they make so much sense. Oh, and Rollamajigs! Fitted one to my SLX mech so I could cleanly route the cable along the chainstay on my Pitch. No idea why they got killed off.

Rapid rise should never have happened though, I've only just replaced the XT mech that has been making my life a misery for the past decade (yes, I know!).

^^I think SRAM killed off Rollamajigs as they basically incorporated it into their mechs.

Rapid rise deserved it's demise, just like biopace. Oval rings are another story though.👍

SAFE (Scott Allen Fife Engineering I think it was) made a hydraulic line that ran between conventional shifters and mechs. Apparently, the resulting action was noticeably lighter. This was so ahead of its time that it predates most disc brakes and full suspension frames.

It would have been great to see that take hold.

Rollamajigs still come up as NOS.

I keep a couple in the spares box as they offer a good solution to bad cable routing.

Standards that remained standard without 101 minor variations to ensure riders couldn't mix-and-match components.

20x110 front axles. Worked really well and got replaced by something worse. We are almost back there now after lots of pointless tweaking

Drum brakes. Set and forget but far too heavy, and need to be slightly larger diameter.

Belt drive - overpriced so killed off by not making it past the early adopters.

As for gearboxes, I think there's still hope, especially if commuting on a bicycle gains in popularity.

Going back a few decades, Sunbeam had a fully enclosed oilbath with a hub gear, but the wheel was quickly detachable with no need to touch the chain - the cog and chain stayed in position. That would have benefitted from development. It would work well now with a carbpnfibre chaincase cum chainstay, with the derailleur and cassette contained within. Imagine a derailleur and crankset and chain that would last the life of the bike.

Which brings me to single sided wheels, ie single leg 'fork' and chainstay. Saves weight, simplifies puncture repairs (ie faster).

I'd love to see a decent gearbox (that shimano patent looked promising) but I think ebikes will kill them off for commuters. Even a moderate ebike motor will keep most of the population plodding along at 15mph up most road hills, at which point, why do you need anything other than singlespeed?

there's quite a few DH-originated standards that should have won through - 1.5" head tubes (stronger, lighter and stiffer than tapered), 150mm x 12mm back ends, etc.

32" wheels. a couple of niche makers have played with them, but if you can get 29" under a DH rider, we should have 32 (or bigger) under xc by now

Looks like a rollamajig replacement is available still from that Aladins cave of bike bits you need but no one else has (SJS cycles).

5lab

there’s quite a few DH-originated standards that should have won through – 1.5″ head tubes (stronger, lighter and stiffer than tapered), 150mm x 12mm back ends, etc.

I'm nt sure 1.5" steerers are lighter, given the need for a much larger had tube on the frame, a bigger stem, etc Tapered is strong where it needs to be - at the join to the crown.

I hope to see gearboxes but I fear it will be hard to get the weight and cost down low enough. These things are always a balance between cost, weight, performance and other factors so not always a straight fight between the best engineered solution...just look at telescopic forks vs. linkage forks. as far as engineering is concerned linkage forks should win hands down, but successive attempts at them succeeding in the market place have failed...bearing in mind they have a way to go regarding development to get designs as mature as telescopic forks - which is difficult in an open market.

upside down forks seem to be the majority in the motorcycle world, why did they never truly take off? Look cooler if nothing else. XC had the RS1 recently, and there is an obscure (ie not from RS or Fox) downhill fork. Plus the lefty of course.

flippy shifters

god no. I cant even get the shifters where I want with matchmakers, have to use separate clamps for shirfter and dropper so my thumbs can press the buttons without contortion. Whatever photograph of western males shimano uses for its ergonomics is not representative of my body shape.

Gearboxes, still possible just expensive to develop and get enough sales to drop the price.

Customisable geometry. Base frame with different bolt on dropouts to change geo. Or if full suspension rear triangles and linkages. Buy a frame and build the bike you want. Fancy a change? Tweak a few bits for a different feel. Kind of like this flip chip stuff but more.

32" wheels sound horrible for anything other than mile munching bikes. The BB drop would be huge for a start.

why did they never truly take off?

Flex.

Rapid Rise rear mech. Teh shizzle.

Gearboxes, linkage forks, belt drive, electronic shifting, basically anything that is costly to make even though it's probably slightly better than the 'standard' part - if the advantage over the normal stuff is minimal for most people, it's gonna have a hard time hitting the mainstream.

Ebikes could have gone this way, the difference being that the advantage they offer is huge over a normal bike so the increased cost/weight/complexity is less of an issue.

I'm more than happy for stuff like this to be a bit niche, so long as the manufacturers can make enough to keep going and keep developing new parts.

Kind of like this flip chip stuff but more.

specialized did this ages ago on the FSR's, and people sill adding nagle sets etc. Problem is, if you give too much to the end user to play with, they'll break it and then they'll be going all US and suing everyone..

Rapid Rise rear mech. Teh shizzle.

Yep.

URT did it's job too as in being a soft landing for those who were scared of these new fangled full suss bikes. Served it's purpose then died off.

As for gearboxes, I think there’s still hope

They will always be more expensive, heavier, and draggier than a derailleur system. They have a solid niche thing going, but it's hard to see them ever being more than that.

sparksmcguff
Looks like a rollamajig replacement is available still from that Aladins cave of bike bits you need but no one else has (SJS cycles).

I thought you meant my garage.

Flippy-shift was a way of bundling Shimano brakes with drivetrains. People wanted to mix and match components.

Low-normal derailleurs probably had benefits but experienced riders were used to the existing direction and had no interest in changing. Maybe if they’d managed to make a shifter that worked in the opposite direction so that riders didn’t have to reprogram themselves – but that might have been difficult because you’d have to have a lot more leverage for the finger lever than before.

The changing was in the mech, it was that which was Rapid Rise. Shimano's mistake was trying to introduce both. If they'd have done RR rear mech with trigger shifters OR Dual Control shifters, it might have worked.

Dual Control is (IMHO) brilliant, still got a set on my MTB. However it's running with a regular rear mech which makes far more sense in terms of the way the shift levers operate. You use the extra force of the hand pushing down to go to bigger cogs and just a quick tap up in combination with the spring of the mech to go to smaller cogs.

TheBrick

Customisable geometry. Base frame with different bolt on dropouts to change geo. Or if full suspension rear triangles and linkages. Buy a frame and build the bike you want. Fancy a change? Tweak a few bits for a different feel. Kind of like this flip chip stuff but more.

Nicolai/Geometron have managed that, you can adjust chainstay length, seatstay length and travel on the G1 with bolt-on parts. Covers a range of geometry and wheel sizes.

They will always be more expensive, heavier, and draggier than a derailleur system. They have a solid niche thing going, but it’s hard to see them ever being more than that.

*insert suspension comment about being heavier, draggier and (massively) more expensive*

I want a Pinion HT next.

Rapid rise should never have happened though

I've got a soft spot for rapid rise because I came up with the idea about a year before it was released. I was dead chuffed I'd thought of it, and never had a problem with it. Not sure why it wasn't liked, but I don't take it personally!

Customisable geometry. Base frame with different bolt on dropouts to change geo. Or if full suspension rear triangles and linkages. Buy a frame and build the bike you want. Fancy a change? Tweak a few bits for a different feel. Kind of like this flip chip stuff but more.

I've been looking at Guerilla Gravity bikes/frames..

They seem to offer this.

One front triangle, and multiple seat/chainstays and what nots to bolt to it..

DrP

I think ebikes will kill them off for commuters.

e-bikes will always be much more expensive than non-e though.

I reckon upside-down forks are top of the list of things we should be riding but aren't. Especially now that discs are ubiquitous. However I can imagine a leaky seal would end up being pretty disastrous...

It did take off, but then it landed again- uturn forks. Brilliant idea, a properly adjustable travel fork that wasn’t just a crappy climbing mode.

Yeah, and well engineered too. I have a vivid memory of seeing some U-Turn forks for the first time in a bike shop in Manchester. The guy there was telling me they were decent and I simply didn't believe the adjuster work well. He made me turn the dial and I was instantly impressed - silky smooth. Little did I know they even stayed silky after years of slop.

I also really liked the Marzocchi lock down forks - I can't remember what the tech was actually called or what forks they were on but you basically turned a lever and the fork dived down for ~80mm of active travel - perfect for steep climbs.

EDIT: It was called Marzocchi ETA.

However I can imagine a leaky seal would end up being pretty disastrous…

Oh God, not another Shimano brake thread, please.

I was going to say ATA ,was one or the other. Flip the lever, then chuck all your weight over the front and it stayed down

“Customisable geometry. Base frame with different bolt on dropouts to change geo. Or if full suspension rear triangles and linkages. Buy a frame and build the bike you want. Fancy a change? Tweak a few bits for a different feel. Kind of like this flip chip stuff but more.”

Specialized have done this on the new Stumpy Evo - head tube inserts to give three different head angles, flip chip at the chainstays to give two different BB drops (which also changes all the angles) and chainstay lengths, and a different linkage to go 29/27. So six stock geometries, and twelve if you buy that linkage.

And the latest Geometron is almost infinitely adjustable with the Mutators.

I also really liked the Marzocchi lock down forks – I can’t remember what the tech was actually called or what forks they were on but you basically turned a lever and the fork dived down for ~80mm of active travel – perfect for steep climbs.

Pace did this too in ooh, 2004?

ATA on Marzocchi forks is infinitely adjustable with a winder, like U-Turn. At least, it is on mine. I don't adjust it during a ride but it makes it easy to fine time your travel to suit your bike and riding. I run mine about 5 half-turns from max.

They will always be more expensive, heavier, and draggier than a derailleur system. They have a solid niche thing going, but it’s hard to see them ever being more than that.

All of that can be addressed through engineering design and development...but that is costly and the end product will be costly...at least initially until volumes go up and prices come down..that is the biggest barrier to entry for alot of these new technologies...can you get enough early adopters to pay the premium for an unproven and under-developed technology, that wont be as good as the established products initially, to get you sufficiently up that technology maturity curve before you go bust. Plenty of bike industry suspension experts have tried and failed. That tells you two things...the real experts who know more about this stuff than we do, see great potential in these new technologies and designs and that they are willing to put heir reputations on the line, risking their own money and pursue them. And secondly it is very hard to make a go of bringing a successful product to market (high barriers to entry).

The challenge is that the balance of attributes of the existing systems are good - they're well known, people feel comfortable they understand the current technologies, they're cheap enough, they are happy to accommodate their significant shortfalls (mostly unaware of them as they know no difference) and the performance to price/cost ratio is very good. Arguably that makes them the best suited technology for the application. But if you're approaching it from a pure performance and engineering perspective then the current designs are 'sub optimal' by a significant margin.

But fork companies are getting greedy. How they're justifying £1000 for a set of forks in beyond me. totally unjustifiable for a product that hasn't really been improved in the last 10 years. They've fettled the designs but they're basically the same there were 10 years ago. Just marketing giving the perception of better value and pushing up the premiums.

Lightweight long travel/travel adjustable triple crown forks.

ayjaydoubleyou
Free Member

upside down forks seem to be the majority in the motorcycle world, why did they never truly take off?

USD only took off for motorbikes due to fashion. When they really caught on- 1996 to 2000 essentially- they were almost always the worse option. For the same spec level, flexier and heavier. And often functionally the same inside.

But they do look cool, so people would tolerate a bit of downgrade. And weight differences do mean less in a 200kg bike. But maybe more significantly, claimed weights at the time were all absolute fiction

So basically, the reason they caught on with motorbikes is that it's easier for a customer to weigh a pushbike.

I’m nt sure 1.5″ steerers are lighter, given the need for a much larger had tube on the frame, a bigger stem, etc Tapered is strong where it needs to be – at the join to the crown.

there was some testing at the time when tapered was being released that showed it was (marginally) lighter for the 1.5 - the forks were a bit lighter, and the frame was negligably heavier (the normal wider tubes/thinner tube material thing, I seem to remember)

32″ wheels sound horrible for anything other than mile munching bikes. The BB drop would be huge for a start.

why's that? 29ers (similar gap to a 26" wheel) are percieved by many to be better overall these days - 32ers are coming (trek are playing with them I think), its just a matter of time. They would definitely have some disadvantages, especially on smaller frames, I'm curious why large BB drop is one of them though?

e-bikes will always be much more expensive than non-e though.

agreed that a single speed e-bike will always cost more than a single-speed non-e bike, but I'm not sure it'll always be more than a gearbox bike. A bottom end hub gear is £100, an 11 speed alfine (which is about as mainstream as you can get) is £400. I recon it won't be long till the gubbins for an ebike are less than (or close enough to not matter) £400

sneaky edit : ah - it seems that £400 was the first price I found, the alfine can be a chunk cheaper than that. Still, point stands, maybe?

Pace did this too in ooh, 2004?

Yup, I owned an RC-40 for a while. The travel adjust was a PITA, sometimes you'd be riding along a perfectly flat surface and would hit a small pebble, there would be a "zzzp!" noise from the right leg and 30mm of travel would magically disappear. Rockshox's U-Turn was far, far better.

There was a compression blow off valve on the right leg that allowed you to slap a dial on the right leg and lock the fork in a reduced travel mode until the fork encountered a bump and you'd ping back to full travel again. TBH this was a nice touch, although the first time that I tried it the threshold dial was fired across the bike shop floor because the dial's grubscrew hadn't been tightened properly during manufacture.

1.5 Headtubes look miles better on longer travel bikes which typically have wider tubing, IMHO, where the weight penalty is meaningless (in reality, if not in marketing). Weeny little 1 1/8 steerer stem clamp is always a disappointing feature on enduro bikes that have them.

Another vote for shimano dual control being excellent, loved the set I had on an old scalpel. Obv problems with locking you in to that system though.

So basically, the reason they caught on with motorbikes is that it’s easier for a customer to weigh a pushbike.

that

but also, i don't about you lot, but the lowers on my forks are battered after 6 years, upsidedown forks,would die (i know you can have the guards, but they're not perfect)..

They will always be more expensive, heavier, and draggier than a derailleur system. They have a solid niche thing going, but it’s hard to see them ever being more than that.

All of that can be addressed through engineering design and development…but that is costly and the end product will be costly…at least initially until volumes go up and prices come down

No, those are fundamental limitations. A gearbox needs a lot of precisely machined parts whereas a derailleur can be made from stamped parts. The precision machining will always be more expensive. Mass-production won't reduce the cost to that of a derailleur because the machining equipment required to produce the gear sets is expensive. If you want to increase production by 100-fold, you need 100 times the investment in factory equipment and skilled operators. Shimano already mass produces gear hubs so there's unlikely to be huge areas to cut costs any further than that.

A gearbox has sliding friction where the gear teeth mesh. Car companies and everyone else who makes power transmission systems have been working for decades to minimize those frictional losses, but they will always be more than a properly lubricated derailleur system. There is no magic solution to that, it's fundamental to how gearboxes work.

Cables for gears are a weak area that should be hydraulic really, however, fly by wire leccy ones will be the future anyway.

Non sealed wire cables with mud and grit. Not ideal.