Forum menu
It’s a bike I’ve thought would be perfect for steep scottish conditions winch and plummet tweed valley kinda riding and I still think it might be.
I posted on the PB comments section that it would appear to make more sense for longer-travel bikes, something like my old 180mm Orange Patriot - where you're not gonna be trying to sprint up short climbs anyway and an extra 2lb won't really notice.
Maybe even on a long-travel e-bike?
They are definitely on my radar, for when/if i decide to replace my gnarpoon, currently a mk3 Nomad, that is mainly used for winch and plummet stuff. I’ve had a ‘gearbox’ DH bike (GT IT1) and liked how it rode, despite the truly awful application of the IGH in the frame, attached to a fixed rear wheel. I’m also used to the lift off to shift aspect, as if I didn’t on my ebike, I’d be needing to bring a selection of rear mechs on every ride that required a gear change...
I’ve also never broken a rear mech beyond a little skipping in a couple of gears so that isn’t really an issue (touch wood)
So my perfect gearbox bike bike would be carbon framed, 180mm travel, single crown fork, DW link rear suss, could be built to 31-32lbs (budget isn’t really an issue...) and a trigger shifter, be that cable or leccy. Geometry suited to bike park type riding please.
i suspect I’ll be waiting at least a couple of years...
Considering the low demand for gearbox bikes, and people having different needs for them, a semi-custom set-up like Nicolai or Starling do might be the best option - so people can choose their own geometry, wheelsize etc.
Most important: the "fun level" of an mountain bike.
1 kg "too much" won't kill the fun so.
Gearbox full suspension bikes will be always expensive - the customers expect a very high "fun level" for this money...
And: was watching the EWS round 1 "full highlights" video a couple minutes ago. Sooner or later the gearbox Enduro companies need to race in EWS. A proper designed gearbox Enduro bike should be able to win ? Guess so. Or?
If they are not able to get onto the podium the gearbox full suspension Enduro bikes will be stuck in the niche market. Possible as well.
Maybe, but I can't see Zerode or any other gearbox manufacturer being able to afford to put Sam Hill on one of their bikes.
If you put anyone else up to represent gearboxes there's a chance they might not win and if a gearbox bike didn't win at the first attempt then it would be proof positive that gearboxes don't work.
Bikes don't win races, money wins races
Zerode don't have the money to buy a top name rider, fly them round the world and provide all the other support they need.
Zerode DH bikes often win regional NZ races
@BruceWee, @thepodge:
Good points. But don't agree.
Yes - not possible for Zerode to pay a Sam Hill. But the EWS Enduro format allows many bikers to participate without "paying team". When these guys get into the top 10 in "one race" they have a chance to get hired (example Greg Callaghan and Cube. Before getting the contract Greg worked in winter and had the money for the races and lived in a camper...). If the gearbox bike has an advantage any of those bikers without contract could pick this bike...
Yes - very difficult to be repeatable on the podium - there a "rich" team is necessary. Yes.
But example: YT is a young company and they don't have the money for the top race bikers - but early on they started EWS. And quickly got once or twice onto the podium...Gave the brand a huge push.
And if the gearbox bike won't get into the top 10, at least one race, first year?
Don't see this as a problem. They have to try again. Guess people are fair and know how difficult the races are.
But I see these races as a big, big chance for new technology. If there is an advantage it will show up in these races. Many very good bikers without contract in EWS. Give one of the #20 ... #30 bikers such a bike and it will show up if he moves "up" or "down" in the ranking.
Riders win races.....
the honda won 5 world cups in three years a shitload of money for a lot of PR thats what money gets you.
Do race wins sell bikes these days? Much as I like watching the DH on Red Bull TV it has no influence on what bikes I buy, not even the brand
And if the gearbox bike won’t get into the top 10, at least one race, first year?
I would say that it's entirely possible depending on the rider, injuries, punctures, mechanicals, etc. Even with all that and it turns out that the gearbox bike is a bad bike then it proves just that. It's a bad bike. If a bike company that runs derailleur bikes doesn't make it into the top 10 does that mean that derailleurs are bad?
The companies currently making high pivot gearbox bikes are Peregrine and Deviate (as far as I know). Sick Bicycles have one in the works but it's not clear if it's aimed at the Enduro racers or not. The Zerode and effigear bikes aren't high pivot. IMO high pivot is the configuration that gearboxes can do that derailleurs can't (I know there have been some examples but there's a lot of complexity).
There has been more than 20 years of development by dozens of companies leading to the enduro bikes we have now. There are two companies who have been developing high pivot gearbox bikes for all of two years.
@BruceWee: fully agree. Only some companies designed Enduro gearbox bikes - very valid point.
@Rubber_Buccanneer: same with me. I'am a trailbiker and no Enduro biker. One of my full suspension bikes is a Bossnut V2 and I'am completely happy with it. No races. No podium.
But: to get new technology into the market it will help to win. Especially when we talk about "Enduro". Enduro bikes are designed "around the EWS race tracks". An Enduro bike - in my understanding - is a race bike designed for Enduro races...
For this type of bikes: in my thinking very important to participate in EWS. And, post above: Zerode DH bikes win already races locally in NZ. DH bikes and Enduro bikes are designed to be fast. In this market niche, in my opinion: to get onto the podium is important.
And yes - if the Zerode gearbox Enduro bike doesn't win it's not a statement about "gearboxes" yet. But - for example - if Deviate Enduro starts getting good results... this would push the gearbox idea! And if none of the gearbox Enduros wins - at least a couple races - in the next years: this would be - for me at least - a statement that these Enduro bikes are not fast...
Still all open. In theory the suspension should work better with the gearbox. Key for an Enduro bike?
YT seem to sell quite a few Capras without having a top-level enduro-ist on their books.
Just sayin'.
@chakaping:
...this is a good one...
http://www.uci.ch/mountain-bike/ranking/
YT is a very young and still a small company. Roots are in downhill bikes.
Aaron Gwin is - with the YT downhill bike - the YT Tues CF Pro - the #1 in uci downhill ranking (2017). These rankings help YT to sell all their bikes - no matter if downhill or Enduro or trail bikes.
For sure!
My guess: they will slowly get better with EWS & Enduro race rankings as well.
And if not ... maybe the Capra isn't the greatest and fasted Enduro around? Right now they live from the Tues / downhill reputation...? (If they don't get into the top 10 for a couple EWS races in 2018 I will start wondering about the "Capra"...Is the YT Tues success really big enough for the Capra in the long run?)
But that's a side-track discussion. Sorry!
Got a Nicolai Ion GPI, love it, only bike I've had where I would consider selling the other bikes to fund a second pinion bike.
What is needed is for gearboxes become more affordable and get onto mid range bikes, then I thinks more manufacturers may come on board so we get the weight and price lower.
Gearbox and electric would be awsome 🙂
Andreas. you seem more than a little pre-occupied with YTs results in enduro.
Also YTs roots are not in Downhill. their roots are in Dirtjumping and then slopestyle. Which they till support in a pretty big way. Downhill, Enduro and then trail bikes came along later in YTs product lines.
The YT mob (UCI DH team) came about because of Aaron Gwin needing a team/sponsors he thought worthy of his achievements and potential. It was not put together by YT alone. But a management team owned by Martin Whitely.
Google him (or 23 degrees Sports Management). Martin has managed many of the worlds fastest DH racers and teams over the years.
I just want to go back to the cost / savings issue for a post
I have an MTB tandem. Using 9x2 gearing I was getting thru 2 or 3 chains a year and one or two cassettes and sets of chainrings. At lest a hundred a year in drivetrain parts often significantly more.
since getting the rohloff 5 years ago I have changed the chain once still using the same chainring and rear sprocket. Now I also changed my lube to a much better one which will have had some influence but the savings are real. chains last longer as you can let them wear further as they are on fixed centres. Rear sprockets are much more robust than cassettes and much cheaper. I am now into profit ie the cost of the rohloff is less than the cost of all the drivetrain savings.
If you used more expensive drivetrains this cost saving would have occurred much earlier
Any talk of gearbox evolution is nonsense; gears and gearboxes have been refined over many years to a point where the gear geometry is as efficient as possible and the mechanical requirements for transferring torque are well known I.e. gearboxes are not going to get significantly lighter as they require a certain amount of meat to live.
Errmmm - I don't believe that is really true - its a cost / benefit equation. I think there was someone blueprinting and lightening rohloffs that significantly reduced weight. doubled the cost however
Motorcycle gearboxes have become much lighter and smaller - but that has taken the resources of large corporations over many years to do
Bicycle gearboxes are in very early stages of evolution yet.
I dont agree, even standard gear system have evolved since the 90's.
The Pinion gearbox , Rohloff and Nuvinci hubs all have a slightly difference approach, the Pinion has already got lighter with the C.1 12 model with the use of magnesium housing, bound to be a few more tweeks to get pricing and weight even lower. The Kindernay has a different approach to current hub gears
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Quite interested in the Nuvinci approach applied to a gearbox and Kindernay has some different approaches to the current hub gears 🙂 </span>
Using magnesium for the housing will lower the overall weight but ultimately the steel gears used need to be a certain size to withstand the loads. Using a lighter material for the gears would be higher cost whilst reducing the longevity of the teeth.
I don't think there is the drive (pun intended) to develop gearboxes for bicycles; they will always be heavier and less efficient* than a chain a derailleur.
And I can't believe a company like Shimano hasn't looked hard at gearboxes and concluded that for a majority of cycling requirements derailleurs are better.
*assumes a well maintained drive train
That's kind of like saying the derailleurs from the 60s couldn't be improved on and 5 gears was the limit. You couldn't squeeze any more in because that would affect the wheel dish and, beside that, you would spend all your time making tiny adjustments to the lever to get them lined up properly.
Then someone came alone with cassette body and index shifting.
There is always room for marginal and not so marginal improvements.
This has turned out to be a much more interesting thread than I expected.
Taking the analogy with the development of conventional derailleur gear systems further, it could be argued that the performance has increased significantly in the 25 years I've been MTBing, but that the weight is broadly similar.
We've added bits like clutches while removing chinarings and front mechs, but you basically need a certain amount of metal.
Would reducing reliability reduce weight and cost?
Who needs a million miles service interval and billion mile lifespan when modern bikes only have a five year frame warranty?
We've already seen that some pinion owners are struggling to sell bikes partly because frame technology has moved on.
I see where you're coming from, but might reducing durability introduce more early failures - which could impact the rep of a brand, or gearboxes generally?
@geex, and "YT" discussion above: thanks. Will google for it. Side-track-discussion anyway...
others, gearbox-evolution: doubt that there will be no further evolution. But further evolution might be connected to more expensive materials - higher price so. See also: Aviation gearboxes and Formula 1 gearboxes are "tiny" and very low weight (compared to the power) - but cost a fortune.
Good point above, the "5 year" thing and issues to sell a Pinion bike for good money again. Personally like old bikes and like to rebuild old stuff. A 5 year old hardtail frame you nearly get "for free"... Bit sad so.
Don't understand why - but many people don't like their bikes after 5 years any more. Most bike manufacturers won't invest then into equipment which lasts twice this time...
My "convential" drivetrains don't last 5 years - but possible that I'am biking too much in mud. Possible that the standard stuff is designed for "standard" bikers and this 4-5 year life span ... to end then on the junk?
Many downsides of this "cycle". Advantage is rapid development in mountain bike technology. When people invest every 4-5 years the big bucks into a new bike ... this will push technology ahead. Five years ago most mountain bike frames were made for 2 inch rubber. Now you easily fit 2.6 inch... - and maybe have more fun?
My thoughts on the Deviate. I was very impressed and it worked really well for me. Nothing beats trying something to see if it works for you.
My “conventional” drivetrains don’t last 5 years – but possible that I’am biking too much in mud. Possible that the standard stuff is designed for “standard” bikers and this 4-5 year life span … to end then on the junk?
Those on here are the exception - we ride a lot and we wear stuff out. I'd put good money that if you looked at all bikes sold, the majority never have many parts replaced. The majority ride less often, fewer miles and only in good weather - standard kit doesn't wear out that quickly. My old road bike was >8 years old and the only thing I'd replaced were the tyres - it was even still on the original brake pads. Road has always been secondary to me but I'd bet I still did more miles than the majority of buyers.
And I can’t believe a company like Shimano hasn’t looked hard at gearboxes and concluded that for a majority of cycling requirements derailleurs are better.
I'm guessing Shimano's calculation is that there isnt a big enough market for a gearbox due to the cost. Same as their hub gears - the Alfine isn't a patch on the Rohloff but they can build it to a price where they sell enough to make it worthwhile. The area where it looks viable to me is e-bikes - a combined motor and gearbox, centrally mounted, seems like a win. There the weight penalty is much less important and you've already got a non-standard bike. It was originally where Pinion were headed but for some reason they've not got there yet.
E-bikes are an interesting comparison. In a few years we're going to have a load of bikes with old, unfashionable frames, but Bosch motors attached that still have a lot of life in them.
The area where it looks viable to me is e-bikes – a combined motor and gearbox, centrally mounted, seems like a win. There the weight penalty is much less important and you’ve already got a non-standard bike.
And presumably (I've never ridden an e-bike) you can back it off mid-climb to shift, then get started again no problem.
Tangent discussion but was chatting to a friend the other day about the lack of integrated motor and gearbox, figured it'd be perfect for minimal maintenance city bikes.
since getting the rohloff 5 years ago I have changed the chain once still using the same chainring and rear sprocket. Now I also changed my lube to a much better one which will have had some influence but the savings are real. chains last longer as you can let them wear further as they are on fixed centres. Rear sprockets are much more robust than cassettes and much cheaper. I am now into profit ie the cost of the rohloff is less than the cost of all the drivetrain savings.
I didn't really find this to be the case when I had a Rohloff hubbed MTB . I had an eccentric BB to tension the chain and was surprised that it needed adjusting every month . As adjusting involved rotating the BB slightly then tightening two spiked bolts that pierced the BB unit to hold it in place which I didn't want to do too many times so I ended up running 3 chains and swapped them every month and only adjusted the BB when all 3 chains had become loose . On top of that my hub developed play and had to be sent back to Germany twice to be fixed . They were very nice about it and fixed it free of charge but it was still inconvenient and there was a bit of play evident when I eventually sold the whole bike .
I didn't find the backing off the power to shift while going uphill to be an issue nor did I find shifting while stationary to be any real benefit , it's just a bit different . The big downsides for me were the drag , the amount of rear wheel punctures , although heavy rear end doesn't apply to mid mounted gearbox bikes which this thread was really about , and I just didn't enjoy riding the bike . I tried for a year or more to convince myself I liked it , having spent a load of money on it but it was never my first choice of bikes to ride so I eventually gave up and sold it which is when I realised one other benefit of the Rohloff is that they don't half hold their value well .
One of the fundamental 'benefits' of the basic derailleur, that is often missed, and often un-appreciated by 'engineers' who claim to have invented a much better 'solution' is that the derailleur DOES NOT CARRY THE DRIVE LOADS.
This is significant, as sitting on the un-tensioned side of the chain, the entire drive loading is carried by the crank sprocket, the chain itself (in nearly pure tension (best use of material)) and the cassette. This means the derailleur is very light for the (multiple) jobs it does:
1) it provides the ability to shift gears
2) it provides the ability to absorb differences in chain length for different gears
3) it provides the ability to absorb differences in chain length caused by suspension kinematics
4) It provides an easy "release" to allow simple, quick rear wheel removal (this is one of those things you don't appreciate till you don't have it, ime)
It's fundamentally pretty simple, highly robust, and shrugs off clogging and dirt etc Yes, you can ride through so much muck it jams up, but usually a quick wash and all's well again.
It's really, really hard to replace all that with another solution, especially when you add cost, weight and user familiarity into the mix!
I'd add maintainability to the list, while many will see an "exposed" drivetrain as a problem, it has the benefit of allowing access to clean/maintain or fix it, replace parts, etc as necessary...
Trail side repairs are not actually all that hard, I'd not fancy cracking a rohloff hub or pinion box open halfway up a muddy hill in Wales, but I could put up with rejoining a chain or fiddling with a mech...
@maxtorque:
very good points.
Derailleur: bit of "strange piece" of engineering. But with your point of "no drive loads" really hard to beat. You are right.
There was a chap we met out in italy who had a gearbox bike- I think a Taniwha, not sure- and he'd cracked the housing so it was leaking oil everywhere. He was desperately trying to fix it with epoxy resin so he could keep riding. I think I'd rather burst a mech tbh. Especially since I'd brought a spare mech
it was leaking oil everywhere
How long until gearbox sealant is a thing? Might make shifting or pedalling a little harder though.
I wonder why no one has revisited what Honda did on their DH bike and stick a derailleur in a box, theoretically all the benefits of both options?
I guess limited range looking at the pictures
Greg Minnaar alluded to the fact that it was relatively high drag compared to a regular transmission. I can't remember if if it had a freewheel or not but It might be that it didn't so that it was possible to change gear while coasting. If you do away with that holy grail requirement it ought to fulfill most of maxtorque's points - other than the additional friction in the system from all the extra chains/steps in the transmission. For downhill it's probably not a major consideration but I don't think it'd work for xc/enduro as derailleur based systems.
I've never had an accident with a mech other than one of the very fragile SRAM carbon cages but I do like the idea of doing a mech-in-a-box bike as I loved the RN01. If they'd ever gone into production, there'd definitely be one in the garage right now.
Quite surprised at that considering the pedalling needed towards the end of Fort William (RN01s first WC race and win) back then. But then this is Minnaar we're talking about.
The RN01's chain did keep spinning even when the bike wasn't being pedalled and the gears could be changed while coasting.
I think it would be the coasting performance that suffered vs a normal setup as the whole of the drivetrain is rotating instead of just the pawls clicking over. When pedaling it's only be the added friction from the extra bits that would be the issue and with a full factory setup and the constant attention they got, that was probably minimal.