Forum menu
Gearboxes and electronics will be no different in time.
1. Gearboxes require precision machining, which is expensive. Derailleurs and cassettes will always be cheaper to make. Cheap bikes will keep using derailleurs.
2. Gearboxes will always be draggier than derailleur systems because the gear teeth have to slide over each other. There's no way around that, it's a physical limitation. Racers will keep using derailleurs because they are more efficient.
An alternative to normal gearboxes might be a system using multiple chains instead of gear drives, but I'm sure someone has already tried it. It wouldn't solve the cost problem but I think it might reduce the drivetrain drag. But, it will always be a niche market.
I do wonder what happened to the lighter long travel bikes the mags were going on about a short while ago. Everything reviewed lately seems to be around the 32lb mark, which, despite what others say, I think is too heavy for a trail bike. Best thing about my old 575 was it had a decent amount of travel, but cos it weighed 27/28lb it was still fun to ride uphill. A 32lb isn't! no matter how well it rides downhill.
thisisnotaspoon
A gearbox, even if it was the same price as a hub, would make the frames much more expensive to make. Even if it was a simple frame mounted hub in a bracket thats still more metal and more welds. And not of any benefit to that market. Same reason why hub motor e-bikes are popular, they do the same job as an expensive one, but at a lower price point
That depends - if Shimano (for example) come out with a standard gearbox unit - it basically replaced cranks, cassette, chainring, etc - and you just bolt that to a frame.
Now all your frames just need the mounting plate/shell welded in instead of a BB shell. You still weld the seattube, downtube and chainstays to one piece, and the gearbox bolts on (not unlike an ebike motor - you might be able to standardise around that somewhat). And there's no cabling to the rear wheel, which is another simplification.
Droppers that go down as well as up. (I doubt we'll see integrated droppers, it's not like integrated seatposts are that big on the road, but arguably more practical on MTB assuming that it would be possible to modify the extension per-rider).
Agree on some sort of system to allow precise and/or easy stem/steerer alignment would be useful, so we're unlikely to see it.
I expect we'll see more electronics on bikes.
Flat mount will probably become more prevalent for no good reason.
Boost surely has to be the most useless change in recent years, esp. on the front.
I think the answer to that lies in this picture, that is not a production ready product! That looks insanely custom made and very, very expensive!
Haha, that does look like metal soup right enough...But in theory it's "just" a chainset, cassette and mech, in a box...how hard can it be?
You still weld the seattube, downtube and chainstays to one piece,
That's a lot of big expensive bike making machines that now can't make bikes though.
Fine for Bob the bike builder, not so fine for giant
I think the frame mounting is one of the major disadvantages of gearboxes - if you make a frame for a gearbox, it can ONLY fix a gearbox, whereas a normal BB can fit any one of tens of different groupsets from several different manufacturers.
Limiting your potential market generally isn't a good thing for sales! Shimano/SRAM need to come out with the gearbox and and standardised mount, only then will the bikes follow.
It'd be like launching a frame and making it only compatible with SRAM AXS and Code RSC brake calipers.
WTF is with everyone finding aligning bars so difficult? A bit fiddly, sure, needing a splined steerer, not even close.
Now all your frames just need the mounting plate/shell welded in instead of a BB shell
wait a minute ago you were complaining about in incompatibility of an axle, but now you think tying yourself into a drive-train "standard" is the way forward?
Last time I brought it up someone tried to argue current steerers where better in a crash than a keyed / splined steerer, like that's some kind of designed in feature. I'd like a system where alignment is right without having to fart about.
£10K bikes will become more common (fancier materials / electronics etc not necessarily better) so I suppose hire purchase similar to cars.
1x and road disc now everywhere I think these have already happened.
Gravel bikes more / subtle suspension, 10-20mm integrated.
Fs gravel bikes
“That’s a lot of big expensive bike making machines that now can’t make bikes though.”
Where are these bike making machines? I’ve never seen any evidence of them across the industry! Car manufacturing, yes, but bike makers seem to go wherever the human welders are cheapest.
nickc
wait a minute ago you were complaining about in incompatibility of an axle, but now you think tying yourself into a drive-train “standard” is the way forward?
I don't want to overstuff the list of things you've misunderstood or misinterpreted, but if you actually read my post, you'll see this quote:
"I don’t think people have an issue with genuine progress – thru axles over QR, etc. People get pissed off with changes of standard that deliver no benefit."
Now, I know you were probably just trying and failing to be smart, but no, I don't expect my BB shell to accommodate a BB, any more than I expect my gearbox frame to accommodate my BSA BB.
In fact, if you scroll back further, I was even suggesting that gearboxes and e-bike motors might be able to use the same standard for mounting.
Fs gravel bikes
Firstly: Get in the sea. Secondly, doesn't Niner already make one?
More electronics and integration tying you to either sram or shimano. Electronic damping on ebikes using the motor battery to power it.
Some sort of charging / recovery system to recharge the battery when descending to extend their range
I was even suggesting that gearboxes and e-bike motors might be able to use the same standard for mounting.
what if, and I'm just guessing here, SRAM and Shimano doesn't want to share their standard with each other, or after a couple of years one of them realises that their Standard needs changing, or they change the standards...just because, y'know, like 15mm and 20mm axles?
Fs gravel bikes
... doesn’t Niner already make one?
They tried... did it ever actually go on sale?
nickc
what if, and I’m just guessing here, SRAM and Shimano doesn’t want to share their standard with each other, or after a couple of years one of them realises that their Standard needs changing, or they change the standards…just because, y’know, like 15mm and 20mm axles?
The standard (what I'm suggesting) would be a good thing. The change in standard that might happen subsequently wouldn't be a good thing, unless it was necessary for some new innovation.
I'd refer you to earlier point about standards ,as it seems you misunderstood that too.
DezB
They tried… did it ever actually go on sale?
Yep, it did
https://www.jensonusa.com/Niner-MCR-9-RDO-5-Star-ETAP-LTD-Bike-2020
SRAM are at least making a universal Mech hanger, so they're interested in having a single, shared standard.
Although...
[img] 
[/img]
That cartoon needs another box in which honourablegeorge gets to decide useful and non-useful standards.
The change in standard that might happen subsequently wouldn’t be a good thing, unless it was necessary for some new innovation.
Plenty of moaning (still) about xd, though seemingly microspline gets less grief. (Despite adding nothing to the open xd standard).
A lot of people want standards not because they're as good as our better than but simply because they don't like change, or progress (not all progress is good but that doesn't change the reality it is progress) or throwing away their perfectly serviceable rod brakes just so they can have a suspension fork.
You may not be one of those folk but, by and large, the desire for standards to stay the same is driven by the desire to use old crap* on new things.
*it's not all crap but for everyone who bemoans not being able to use their old xtr kit on their new bike there's about 400 moaning their original sis shifters don't play with the new 12 speed stuff they want.
https://www.jensonusa.com/Niner-MCR-9-RDO-5-Star-ETAP-LTD-Bike-2020
/blockquote>I'd have one. But for that seatpost (needs a dropper!) I have that seatpost on my Tripster and it scratches if you just breathe on it. For $8K you'd expect something better spec'ed 😀
Situation: There are 15 competing standards.
15?! 6 of those are outdated and need revising/updating. Yeah!
Soon: There are 21 competing standards.
nickc
That cartoon needs another box in which honourablegeorge gets to decide useful and non-useful standards.
And subtitles to explain the joke, as you've probably misunderstood that too.
A very slight pull back from LLS towards a more everyday trail based geometry thats a bit more lively and fun for the 95% less gnar non enduro stuff most people ride.
dangeourbrain
Plenty of moaning (still) about xd, though seemingly microspline gets less grief. (Despite adding nothing to the open xd standard).
A lot of people want standards not because they’re as good as our better than but simply because they don’t like change, or progress (not all progress is good but that doesn’t change the reality it is progress) or throwing away their perfectly serviceable rod brakes just so they can have a suspension fork.
You may not be one of those folk but, by and large, the desire for standards to stay the same is driven by the desire to use old crap* on new things.
I saw XD as a good thing - it brought the 10t cog, and the cassettes were lighter as a result - GX 10-42 is about 25% lighter than XT 11-46, but has slightly wider range, and solves the issue of cassettes biting into the freehub, and most XD freehubs are lighter, too.
So there was a good reason for the change, and it's more or less backwards compatible if you fit a new freehub, although they cost a few quid.
Agree Microspline adds nothing, although I don't know if Shimano could have made XD cassettes without a license fee.
DezB
I’d have one. But for that seatpost (needs a dropper!)
Yeah, I'm looking at the saddle/seatpost in the pic and picturing getting stuck behind it om something steep and never being able to get back to a seated position.
It's a weirdly specific thing, that bike, but maybe starts to make some sense for the US where there's a big network of unpaved dirt roads.
Extending handlebars akin to dropper posts. Press button, squeeze them in to 90's XC width for the headwind on the road, press button again and pop them out to full 800mm glory for carving the gnarr. Somewhere in the middle for the narrow gaps between trees...
On splined steerer tubes, I can see that causing a lot of broken bars - I crashed recently hard enough to spin my stem around yet I could barely move them to realign them, had to loosen off the stem.
Something I hope that continues onwards, is dropper post length. 200mm, 210mm, why stop there? Give me 250mm, 300mm!*
*I know, there will come a limit when the length of drop is more than the length of the post itself.
You know those cheap telescopic fishing rods? We need dropper posts like that. 150mm on the first extension, and another 100mm inside that.
That depends – if Shimano (for example) come out with a standard gearbox unit – it basically replaced cranks, cassette, chainring, etc – and you just bolt that to a frame.
Now all your frames just need the mounting plate/shell welded in instead of a BB shell. You still weld the seattube, downtube and chainstays to one piece, and the gearbox bolts on (not unlike an ebike motor – you might be able to standardise around that somewhat). And there’s no cabling to the rear wheel, which is another simplification.
Still means all that effort for no benefit. Centralizing mass makes sense on an OFF road bike. For bimbling to the shop it's a non issue.
I'm sure properly viable gearboxes will appear at some point for MTB's, and they might even appear on a handful of commuters (Trek did a Gates belt drive for example) But I can't see it ever gaining market share anywhere else, there's just not the benefit.
The average person probably can't even comprehend riding the 2000+ miles it takes to wear out a chain on a road bike, let alone the idea that they'd pay a significant premium to avoid this potential £40 problem in the future.
Boost surely has to be the most useless change in recent years, esp. on the front.
Front maybe, although arguably it was less inconvenient as a result because you could just wack a spacer on your old wheels and be good to go.
Rear it made sense, you can't actually build certain combinations of rims/hubs within the manufacturers spec because the NDS spokes are so slack. My last pair was Stans Crest 29er rims and the spoke angles are such that to get the drive side ones under the tension limit the none drive side are practically loose. Only remedy was to go ~10% over and accept they will likely crack at some point.
TBH though they could just have gone with 150mm DH hubs (or 157 or whatever the flanged version is).
There are lower spec versions of that Niner.
https://www.jensonusa.com/Niner-MCR-9-RDO-3-Star-Bike-2020
Here's one I'm going to throw out there that I don't fully believe in:
Gravel TT bikes.
Just cos I've seen some pics of people doing adventure races with clip on bars on their gravel bikes. Maybe someone will make a purpose-built thing for those folk.
the new shimano gearbox is effectively just a mech-and-cassette-in-a-box (albeit with 2 cassettes, not one) - so from an efficiency perspective it should pretty much match a traditional arrangement.
I'm interested in whether that might lead to a driveshaft (which could telescope, or have a range of places that one end can integrate to the drivetrain), rather than a chain to the rear wheel, effectively removing issues with squat/anti-squat, tensioners, etc
More cheaper carbon and maybe a combination of carbon with lugs or something. Looking to save manufacturing costs.
Higher end looking at strengthening carbon frames in areas consistent with fatigue or impacts.
More minuscule changes to shocks,forks and brakes meaning a retool for everyone.
1x for road bikes. There is no good reason not to for the vast majority. Unless you are going up an down Alp D'uez on your ride then a much simpler gear arrangement would be fine.
the new shimano gearbox is effectively just a mech-and-cassette-in-a-box (albeit with 2 cassettes, not one) – so from an efficiency perspective it should pretty much match a traditional arrangement.
I’m interested in whether that might lead to a driveshaft (which could telescope, or have a range of places that one end can integrate to the drivetrain), rather than a chain to the rear wheel, effectively removing issues with squat/anti-squat, tensioners, etc
The different being that the cogs in a box solution could have a heavier duty chain, and a constant oil bath - which is no different to a cam chain on a car, which lasts for 100,000's of miles. Maybe a little more drag with the oil 'sump' but not much.
Driveshafts I can't see - just look at motorbikes, 98% of them still use chains.
With a gearbox and seperate output shaft/cog, comes the ability to move the effective chainset location quite a bit, you could have a high pivot bike with the output shaft next to the pivot, and the crankset 50/60mm lower down.
[img] 
[/img]
Electronic shifting is going to work it’s way down the group set levels so it’ll be available across all the price ranges.
It’s not inherently expensive and it saves on materials.
It’ll be easy to sell in bike shops to the casual user and desirable to geeks who like to connect their phones to everything.
I imagine it’ll be easier to maintain and adjust over the long term too. Cable operated gears must be the most common problem area for riders.
Pulling on bits of wire will become niche like vinyl.
Belt drives are terrible off road for being chewed to pieces
Specialized are launching a flat-bar version of their Diverge. It should be perfect for shouldering up a mountain!
I spent about 20 years between about 1990 and 2010 trying to create exactly that kind of fast, lightweight, comfortable XC bike!
So, full circle then.
Another drivetrain idea i was thinking of the other day is larger freewheel/ratchet diameters. Seems odd that as cassette diameters have increased that the actual pawl/ratchet mechanism has stayed as small as it is buried within. Surely its size could increase to take some space of the cassette. This would lead to smaller engagement angle and stronger mechanisms.
You can have that one for free mr SRAM
Another drivetrain idea i was thinking of the other day is larger freewheel/ratchet diameters. Seems odd that as cassette diameters have increased that the actual pawl/ratchet mechanism has stayed as small as it is buried within. Surely its size could increase to take some space of the cassette. This would lead to smaller engagement angle and stronger mechanisms.
You can have that one for free mr SRAM
That would require another freehub standard, yes? 😀
Not sure how hubs would work with spoke tensions etc, with one flange being massive and the other small.
Also, massive flange.
ta11pau1
Driveshafts I can’t see – just look at motorbikes, 98% of them still use chains.
I thought the CeramicSpeed one was really interesting. Not sure it solves a problem, but it was a really impressive bit of engineering, and they claimed t have a version working with a full suspension frame
https://www.jensonusa.com/Niner-MCR-9-RDO-5-Star-ETAP-LTD-Bike-2020
I’d have one.
I've got one 🙂 Not quite that spec, though. Early days, but really enjoying it so far.
Not sure if we'll see many more like it, but I suspect that we will see more bump-taming ideas applied to gravel bikes.
Hopefully not much. I think MTB need to get it focus back on riding rather than the equipment. MTB is great fun but the consumerism in it has gone from high to stratigraphic.
Boost has sorted the axle issues that have been around for years, tapered headtubes ditto. Geo in each sub genre of mtbn is pretty much there, only minor tweaks.
Trickle down of electronic shifting will happen. Electronic brakes no chance.
Gearboxes on electric bikes will happen, less sure about on normal bikes.