Not really sure what the underlying point is here so I might be misunderstanding, but…
Yeah, I get that a lot. I'm seriously thinking about giving up on this forum because I can get my points across in person but on here I say something that makes sense to me and everyone goes ****ing mental. Mostly because they have fundamentally not understood what I have said so I'm thinking that I just fail to get my point across in written form.
Or I've just drifted so far from most people that the way I think is fundamentally incompatible with the majority now.
My point is that we went through most of the 00s with no changes in standards. Then the 10s came along and every standard was changed. Sure, you can buy adapters for compatibility in some cases but every single mounting point was changed. Axle spacing, derailleur mounting, freehub design, brake caliper mounting, BBs, chainlines, etc. Literally every part of the drivetrain now has a new standard and yet it looks exactly the same and has exactly the same major weaknesses.
So, my point. Instead of creating Boost, why the hell couldn't Trek have introduced Lal's design or something similar and fixed the biggest weak point and design limiting factor on full suspension mountain bikes?
My point is that we went through most of the 00s with no changes in standards. Then the 10s came along and every standard was changed. Sure, you can buy adapters for compatibility in some cases but every single mounting point was changed. Axle spacing, derailleur mounting, freehub design, brake caliper mounting, BBs, chainlines, etc. Literally every part of the drivetrain now has a new standard
There used to be two standards for disk brakes, ISO and post-mount. ISO was dropped and now everyone uses post-mount. You can bolt some 25 year-old Hayes brakes onto a brand new frame. You can't mount an old derailleur on a direct mount frame, but otherwise derailleur mountings haven't changed. Brand new Shimano BBs will fit an old frame from the 90s. Tapered forks will fit any headtube that has 44 mm ID if you fit the correct headset and straight steerer forks will fit a tapered headtube if you fit the correct headset. Any 1 1/8 threadless stem will fit any tapered steerer fork so you can fit oversized bars to an old bike if you have a compatible stem. Seatposts and saddles are compatible, as long as the seattube diameter isn't smaller than the seatpost. Pedals are compatible. You can fit a new 15 x 100 mm hub into an old QR fork with a cheap adapter, but not vice-versa, which is a good thing.
Yes, some standards have changed, but the backwards compatibility is actually quite impressive.
Instead of creating Boost, why the hell couldn’t Trek have introduced Lal’s design or something similar and fixed the biggest weak point and design limiting factor on full suspension mountain bikes?
As you said, it would have been too much, people wouldn't have bought it in the volume that would make it viable for them. Lal are ahead of a curve. Trek are a mainstream brand, they only go so far each time and mainstream buyers don't want dramatically different bikes. The biggest change usually comes from smaller brands who have to be ahead of the curves. And in this case (LAL) it's a lot of change to solve a problem that just isn't a major problem for most riders, it introduces other compromises or complexity that the mainstream will be wary of.
TBH the way many riders will spend big bucks on a posher or techier version of what we've had for 50 years seems odd but not unexpected. Mainstream vs outliers. Smart/techy/conspicuous slightly better versions of the norm for the mainstream (buy a Tesla) vs something different that creates real change for the outliers (keep your old car and add a Tern GSD)?
E-bikes may drive the change in this area of MTB. E-bike motors will go gearbox, rear hubs will change standard to be dishless on a narrow-ish OLD and there will be influence on non-e bikes. Perhaps the current 'add a cog' "12 speed is the Gillette Turbo Max 8 blade razor of the biking world" path will become wide-enough ratios from fewer sprockets. The close gaps 'maintaining cadence' thing is roadie. Maybe we get an enclosed 2x6 system that uses small sprockets and chainrings but keeping it enclosed and clean means it runs efficiently enough. No need to stay with current chain specs anyway. You'd get an overlap on 3 of the gears so perhaps there's a shift pattern that gives 9 sequential gears from the 12 ratios, or it uses a planetary 2-speed with a 6 speed block. The main barrier will still be having to design a frame specifically for it and the change or decisions that forces. It'll happen though. Change happens slowly then fast.
My shifter, cassette, cassette, chain and chainring were under £100 in total, and I haven’t touched them since fitting them three years ago (apart from the occasional clean).
Ignoring standards for a moment, just how little riding do you do?
Anyway, my next bike will be a gearbox eBike and TBH I don't GAS about whether it's compatible with any of my current bikes - do folk buy cars or motorbikes etc based on 'compatibility' with their current vehicle?
I'm just hopeful though that the market will have 'matured' enough for when I want/need my next bike for their to be a supply of them.
I'm not normally a first adopter, but I did get a LLS Cotic within months of its launch as I demo'd one on the trails I normally ride and couldn't believe how safe it felt compared to my (then) current bike. For its replacement I did exactly the same and demo'd/hired a number of bikes, this time eBikes, and then bought the one that worked best.
All my bikes do different things, I'm not that bothered about 'compatibility' with either each other of for their replacement as I proper wear things out and aren't a serial swapper - example is the Cotic, just over 5 years old and the only original parts are the stem & shock (it's done over 5,000 miles & 1,000,000 feet of ascending/descending).
Look at the Honda bike and imaging that the gearbox is several inches longer, plus wider (to fit a 12 speed cassette), then tell me where you’re going to fit the suspension and a dropper post.
Since the bike will be about a foot longer in the wheelbase because of what we've learned since it'll probably go in fine.
Not got time to read back through all the bickering from the usual suspects, but:
- Agree with OP. Any BB "standard" apart from threaded BSA really.
DUB is the perfect example of a failed standard in waiting, they'll come up with something else in a few years. Why oh why don't Sram just swallow their pride and make their cranks cross-compatible with Shimano?
- 35mm handlebars, a pointless new "standard" that actually seems to have become the standard, sadly
- Agree on internal cable routing (for anything apart from the dropper up the seat tube).
Anyone who goes on about liking a "clean" looking bike is a fanny.
- I'm not sure 12sp is actually better than 11sp, but I haven't ridden it enough to be 100%
Maybe we get an enclosed 2×6 system that uses small sprockets and chainrings but keeping it enclosed and clean means it runs efficiently enough. No need to stay with current chain specs anyway. You’d get an overlap on 3 of the gears so perhaps there’s a shift pattern that gives 9 sequential gears from the 12 ratios, or it uses a planetary 2-speed with a 6 speed block.
That will all be expensive to build, plus it will constrain frame designers a lot. Making a 2x6 shift cleanly under power will be a problem because one derailleur has to shift the chain under load. You can get away with that with a normal 2x system because you aren't shifting between the front rings very often. What you're proposing would mean that every second shift is shifting the chain under load so it won't shift as smoothly as a 1x12 system. Also, with a derailleur in a box system, the chainline needs to be kept straight because the chain is very short. The Honda gearbox moved the drive sprocket with the chain so that the chainline was always straight, but that's expensive because you need precision machined parts to do that. Trying to make it a 2x or 3x system won't make it any simpler or cheaper, it'll just make it shift worse.
There are all sorts of ways that you could build a bicycle transmission, but making one that is as cheap to manufacture as a normal derailleur and performs as well is not as simple as people imagine. Shimano have obviously thought about these things (hence their patents), but they haven't produced one yet because they don't believe it would be profitable. Same with SRAM, if they thought they could make a cheap frame mounted transmission that would make external derailleurs unnecessary, they would be selling them right now.
Yeah, I get that a lot. I’m seriously thinking about giving up on this forum because I can get my points across in person but on here I say something that makes sense to me and everyone goes **** mental.
@BruceWee, fwiw I get your point and I think it's a good one, even if you got some of the details wrong
Looks like jameso sees what you are getting at too
It does remind me of politics -- the constant discourse and promises of change and doing things differently, but then just more of the same, and when something genuinely different comes along (i.e. Corbyn) everyone looses their s**t
I wasn't really fishing 🙂
But okay, I bought a new 29" wheel bike at the start of this year as an upgrade for the same model 26" bike.
So...
+ rolls over stuff better
- worse at twisty singletrack
+ tubeless seems to work better with larger volume tyres
- bigger wheels seem to catch the sides of rocks/roots a lot more
+ better at climbing in the saddle
- much worse at climbing out of the saddle
- really heavy. It's ridiculous how much heavier. Both CF full suspension bikes, 26 has an alloy rear triangle, 29 is full CF. 26 has a triple, 29 is 1x. 29 is 3kg heavier.
- much more annoying to transport
I do like the new bike, but on the whole, I think 29 is a worse standard.
That will all be expensive to build, plus it will constrain frame designers a lot. Making a 2×6 shift cleanly under power will be a problem because one derailleur has to shift the chain under load. You can get away with that with a normal 2x system because you aren’t shifting between the front rings very often. What you’re proposing would mean that every second shift is shifting the chain under load so it won’t shift as smoothly as a 1×12 system.
I didn't have a 2-step type system in mind, you're right that would be messy. I was thinking of a system that shifted the front at the right point across the cassette so that the overlaps were taken out ie 9 speeds from a total of 12 ratios. Remove the overlap ratios that one ring creates at one end of the block and run through as a sequential range. 2x just creates ratio range within the space by reducing sprocket sizes, and I doubt it'd be prohibitively complex to have the chain staying in the same position. Certainly more expensive than std mechs but when Transmission is the price it is and reportedly isn't that fast a shift anyway it doesn't seem a stretch to think a chain gearbox can be viable. The biggest problem probably would be creating momentum for the shift to compatible frames.
It'd bring in new design constraints like mid motors or gearboxes do but ..
if we just created a standard for mounting points ..
@Aidy, all fair points.
Like you, I went from 26 to 29, although a few years ago. It did take some getting used to, for the reasons you mention. I think it also needs a slightly different riding style. Initially, when I rode my 29er like my 26er I was much slower. Over time I think it's given me more confidence.
What's interesting to me is that my mate has a couple of 27.5 bikes, full suspension and hardtail, and whenever I've ridden them, I've enjoyed them for many of the reasons that you mention. However I also really enjoy riding my 29er.
it doesn’t seem a stretch to think a chain gearbox can be viable
They're viable in the sense that they function. The problem is that they are much more expensive to make and will be difficult to package into a small sized suspension frame.
One benefit of the Honda version was that it could shift while the bike was coasting. That's great for a DH specific bike. One issue is that they may not shift well under load because the drive sprocket has to slide along the input shaft along with the derailleur. For an XC bike, the crucial thing is being able to shift when you are applying full power out of the saddle on a steep climb. I don't think a derailleur in a box would shift as cleanly as a normal derailleur under those conditions.
if we just created a standard for mounting points ..
Dreamer.
😉
@thols2 Sure, I get that it's not a simple project and I don't disagree with you, I don't see it being a system that would replace mechs in a racing situation. So as long as people buy what pros race it's a hard sell and it still will be for anyone wanting light and efficient gearing. Mechs have stuck around for good reason. But not everyone is racing or needing what refined mech systems offer, there are other ways to do it and they'll all have pros and cons.
there are other ways to do it and they’ll all have pros and cons.
Yes, and the derailleur in a box is never going to be a mainstream replacement for traditional derailleurs because it will always be more expensive, plus it is much more difficult to package into a small suspension frame. There's no magic involved, everyone knows how they work and they aren't widely used because the minor benefits aren't enough to overcome the huge disadvantages.
The huge advantage to a different gearing system isn't factored in to most people's thinking (and certainly not corporate thinking), that is the massive reduction in material usage to ride a given distance
Those Rohloff's that have done ~100,000 miles have likely avoided the use of about 20 cassettes, perhaps twice as many chains, and however many mechs would have broken during that time, which could total ~20 kg of metal, so around the same weight as ~8-15 hardtail frames (or there abouts)
So they may appear expensive from a conventional cost calculation when compared to lower-end performace kit like Deore, but that's largely as resources and environmental damages remain underpriced
I'd love to see durability standards that made this point take more prominance with bike tech, but it's not going to happen
never going to be a mainstream replacement for traditional derailleurs
Hold on, I'd not said that all MTBs, like from £600 HT to XC race to Enduro etc, would move over to a new boxed drivetrain, or a gearbox is better etc, just that it's a 'maybe' and e-bike development might influence pedal MTBs. We have £1500+ mech systems now so I wouldn't say 'never' based on cost relative to what people spend on bikes generally. We can get motors and gearboxes into small frames already. Either way .. since no-one's really buying bikes for durability and not many riders are actually pedalling that far in bad conditions, I also reckon it won't happen. But I wouldn't discount it outright.
And whatever happens there wouldn't be a mounting standard.
I’d love to see durability standards that made this point take more prominance with bike tech, but it’s not going to happen
..exactly. Though we have Linkglide now, so that's a start of e-bikes influencing the durability of drivetrains (as posted below as I was editing to add this). And before that SRAM had am 8-speed e-bike cassette. NSMB have some good articles on a future with fewer gears.
I’d love to see durability standards that made this point take more prominance with bike tech, but it’s not going to happen
Shimano have gone down this exact route with their Linkglide stuff, haven't they?
IIRC it's claimed to have 3x the longevity of their normal kit, apart from the chains which are the same.
legometeorology
The huge advantage to a different gearing system isn’t factored in to most people’s thinking (and certainly not corporate thinking), that is the massive reduction in material usage to ride a given distance
Those Rohloff’s that have done ~100,000 miles have likely avoided the use of about 20 cassettes, perhaps twice as many chains, and however many mechs would have broken during that time, which could total ~20 kg of metal, so around the same weight as ~8-15 hardtail frames (or there abouts)
I'd say only a small minority of bikes sold reach a tenth of that distance. The reality is most people will never replace one cassette on a bike, let alone 20. You make a great case for long distance tourers, less so for the average.
Aargh lost my reply.
Bruce, every single thing on your list had multiple incompatible variations during the 2000s, your point is completely wrong. It's always been like this. You just chose not to engage in it as you're quite entitled to do now.
I’d say only a small minority of bikes sold reach a tenth of that distance. The reality is most people will never replace one cassette on a bike, let alone 20. You make a great case for long distance tourers, less so for the average.
There's no reason a single rider has to do that many miles though, nor that the gear system has to go with the rest of the bike.
I'm a chronic bike changer, but I expect my Rohloff will just be moved onto whatever new bike I happen to think will solve all my problems next year. If not, I'll sell it to someone else who may add a few more thousand miles on to it (it had also done thousands of miles before I bought it). Kind of like a well made steel frame, which can be bouncing around different owners for years/decades.
External gear systems are in contrast built from a collection of disposable parts.
Those Rohloff’s that have done ~100,000 miles have likely avoided the use of about 20 cassettes, perhaps twice as many chains, and however many mechs would have broken during that time, which could total ~20 kg of metal, so around the same weight as ~8-15 hardtail frames (or there abouts)
The number of people who ride 100,000 miles in their lifetime is tiny. The people I work with think I'm amazing because I do a 10 km each way commute by bike on nearly flat terrain. If I drove to work every day for a month instead of riding, that would burn more than 20 kg of petrol, so 1 kg of metal per 5,000 miles is pretty environmentally friendly compared to anyone who commutes by car.
Most bicycle owners never replace the chain or cassette even once for the lifetime of their bike. A basic commuter bike with a steel cassette will last for years if the chain is lubed, only serious cyclists replace chains twice a year. On top of that, metal is easily recycled so it's not the case that those old chains and cassettes are just going into landfill.
I would have moved my spare rohloff onto my new emtb - but its now impossible to buy a decent proper MTB without one of these new standard axles so I cannot. Interchangability is great. I also cannot use my trailer axle with it so will have to bodge trailer mounts another way
I suspect this’ll be an unpopular opinion, but 29ers.
Wheels should be tied to rider height.
Its mad to expect a 6'4" magnificence to a man to ride a bike that can also be ridden by Hobbits, but with a longer seat tube.
Hairy footed little boys and girls get to sit behind their handlebars, where as us taller folk have to sit up above them and reach down to them, meaning the brakes have a much greater liklihood of sending you OTB
29er goes a long way to resolving that. My first 29er was a revelation.
I dont know of any standards that are worse, but there are plenty that are no better
Boost, Super Boost, mega boost, can all get stuffed.
It should go:
1: Rim brake Road bike
2: Mountain bike (and disk roads),
3: DH/Cargo/Tandem Fatboy bike
And i think thats being generous. 135mm never bothered anyone before 2010.
Shimano have gone down this exact route with their Linkglide stuff, haven’t they?
That's cool, I haven't followed e-bike stuff at all
The people I work with think I’m amazing because I do a 10 km each way commute by bike on nearly flat terrain.
Well, I would suggest they aren't the target market for a Rohloff or Pinion then.
On top of that, metal is easily recycled so it’s not the case that those old chains and cassettes are just going into landfill.
Assuming the metals actually make it to facilities, recycling and remanufacturing uses a lot of energy -- why not just make something that lasts?
If I drove to work every day for a month instead of riding, that would burn more than 20 kg of petrol, so 1 kg of metal per 5,000 miles is pretty environmentally friendly compared to anyone who commutes by car.
I can't help but think you have a grudge against internal gearing, given you've now brought both Tourney mechs and cars into the conversation to dismiss it.
I can’t help but think you have a grudge against internal gearing,
Not at all, they have their place, in fact I have a 3 speed Sturmey Archer hub sitting in a box that I plan to use for a commuter bike for my daughter. I've always been tempted by a Rohloff, but the price is just too high. Maybe when I retire I'll treat myself to a Rohloff equipped touring bike.
However, traditional derailleurs are always going to be cheaper and slightly more efficient so internal gearing will always be a niche thing, it's not going to replace derailleurs in the way that fanbois imagine. I think I've broken one derailleur hanger and two derailleurs in 25 years, most people don't smash derailleurs as often as gearbox advocates seem to imagine.
Probably waaayyy too late to say this on page 5, but it's the [i]lack[/i] of standards that's the problem, if only they were standards! Cassettes, headsets, freehubs, bbs, cranksets, hub widths, so many damn configurations possible.
Those Rohloff’s that have done ~100,000 miles have likely avoided the use of about 20 cassettes, perhaps twice as many chains, and however many mechs would have broken during that time,
That was how St John Street Cycles used to market/sell their Rohloff stuff with a wildly OTT assumption on the amount of miles people were doing and some "creative" maths to show that you'd be wearing out 17 complete XTR drivetrains every year but a Rohloff would last 400 years and you should give us all your money for a Rohloff-equipped bike now.
On touring and utility bikes (and e-bikes), hub gears (and belt drives) make a lot of sense - on MTBs, especially full-sus MTBs, they're a pain in the arse to deal with the extra lump of weight affecting everything. Gearbox setups like Pinion are better but then you're tied to a very specific frame design.
I think I’ve broken one derailleur hanger and two derailleurs in 25 years, most people don’t smash derailleurs as often as gearbox advocates seem to imagine.
I'm guess I ride a totally different version of MTB to you, I've managed that in less than the last 12 months.
I think I’ve broken one derailleur hanger and two derailleurs in 25 years,
Derailleurs certainly never used to last me over 12 years, not sure how you are managing that
Anyway, I didn't deny that derailleurs can be cheaper. I just pointed out that internal gearing is increasingly competitive with the prices of modern performance drivechains (or to put it another way, the payback period is dropping), to which you quoted the price of a Tourney mech. And I pointed out that mechs are inherently disposalbe systems, and you replied by bringing in car travel as a baseline!
I've also not denied that they're inherently less efficient (although I reckon the differences become quite negligible if your drivechain is dirty and neglected -- mine often was)
If anything, having come from many years of single-speeding, the main issue I have with internal gearing for mtb is slow engagement. Not a problem for gravel, but def noticable of techy moorland trails -- the kind of terrain where my mech used to take a beating in fact
How much is a 1x12 setup? chain. sprocket and cassette? Midrange
I am convinced running a rohloff on the tandem saved money over a decade - and also meant no more broken rear hubs. HUbs used to be effectively a service item lasting only a year or so before failing
On touring and utility bikes (and e-bikes), hub gears (and belt drives) make a lot of sense – on MTBs, especially full-sus MTBs, they’re a pain in the arse to deal with the extra lump of weight affecting everything. Gearbox setups like Pinion are better but then you’re tied to a very specific frame design.
The Kindernay 7 I have is only about 300g heavier on the rear axle than SLX or Sram GX AXS. About the same as Shimano Linkglide I think
For the Pinion, that's why standards are needed I guess
I don't think my math was far out there -- just the simple assumption that a cassette lasts 5,000 miles with three chains, with a Rohloff sprocket and single speed chain lasting the same distance
And I've said it already, but my Rohloff was £550, and in a few years, it will still be worth £550
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/i-got-a-kindernay-internal-gearhub/
but it’s the lack of standards that’s the problem
Not having standards is a good thing. It's why Rohloffs exist, it's why Honda can get creative with putting things in boxes, it's why 29ers came about, it's how derailleurs were invented in the first place.
Derailleurs certainly never used to last me over 12 years, not sure how you are managing that
Like @thols2 I've never bust a derailleur in 30 years of of road cycling. I can see why folks that have bust them want to change to something else, and it's great they exist, but it's not the answer to every drive train question.
Rohloffs do fit the standards. Now available in all the different axle types or most of them. Tensioner off the mech mount
but it’s not the answer to every drive train question.
Erm, it is. Well, it is if you ask it here.
I’m guess I ride a totally different version of MTB to you, I’ve managed that in less than the last 12 months.
Very few cyclists smash two derailleurs per year.
How much is a 1×12 setup? chain. sprocket and cassette? Midrange
slx is £20 + £50 + £30 for those 3 parts. Another £50 for a mech and £25 for the shifter, so £175 for the complete setup. There's no way that roloff is cheaper.
So for me that would be 2x chains per year and 1x cassette and sprocket so £120 a year minimum in worn parts compared to one chain a year plus a cheap sproket and chainring every few years. A decade is easily enough to pay back the cost of the rohloff - and as abiove the rohloff sitllis worth £500+ at the end of it
I wqas actually on midrange 2x9 which cost a lot more than that per year
WRT derailleurs and hangers - never used to be a problem to me, until I started to ride techier lines more quickly, and now I go through them much more frequently.
There’s no way that roloff is cheaper.
It's kinda of irrelevant though. For most people it's probably not worth it, for the sorts of folks for whom a gearbox hub is an attractive alternative it's absolutely worth it. That both systems exist is a good thing.
So for me that would be 2x chains per year and 1x cassette and sprocket so £120 a year minimum in worn parts compared to one chain a year plus a cheap sproket and chainring every few years.
I mostly run Deore level steel chainrings and cassettes. They last for years. I generally run the newest stuff on my good bike, then switch it to my spare bike, then finally put it on my commuter bike until it's knackered. I guess I buy a new chainring, cassette, and chain about once every two years. If I fitted Rohloffs to three bikes, it would take many decades for the cost of cassettes to work out more expensive.
So for me that would be 2x chains per year and 1x cassette and sprocket so £120 a year minimum in worn parts compared to one chain a year plus a cheap sproket and chainring every few years.
I use XO1 and GX level SRAM 12 speed, and I change everything in one go. Bike's just been to the shop for bearings and my mechanic reckoned that the drive train's about half way done. It went on in Nov '21. it's done over 5500kms so far I'll probs change it in the spring next year before it gets so bad that tweaking the stops doesn't work anymore. GX Cassette is £130, chainring is £35, and chain is anywhere between £30-50. Jockey wheels are £30 I think (without checking) plus what? Tenner for cables. I'm OK with that.
Agreed derailleurs aren't a perfect solution, neither a rohloff's, but they've both got their place.
I'm going to be interested to see if SRAM T-type derailleurs solves a lot of the problems for me. It's not so much the cost of replacing hangers as the faff involved.
