After seeing that Nicolai are putting out a bike with the Lal system, it got me thinking that now might be the time for a manufacturer to try something like the Phaser gearbox again.

Phaser Gearbox

It seems like it would be an ideal match for high pivot designs and also it uses more or less off the shelf parts. I also think it would be a good candidate for electronic shifting since the most obvious way (as far as I can tell) to make the shifting mechanism is to use a lead screw which might be difficult to get enough cable pull from any type of normal shifter but could easily be done with a stepper motor.

I like the Lal design but it just seems that the Phaser solution would be superior in almost every way, unless I’m missing something?

That website is horrible and the link to the video is broken.

I’ve often thought that if I made a gearbox, it would be something like that. However, getting it to shift smoothly with such a short chain might be tricky and I can imagine that backpedaling might snarl it up quite badly.

It might actually be better to do away with the derailleur idea and have a chain permanently running on each pair of sprockets. Use one regular cassette but have the sprockets on the other cassette freewheeling by default, with the shift mechanism using dogs to lock one sprocket at a time to the output shaft. There would have to be a small false neutral between gears and I doubt you could shift under full power, but it should be simpler and cheaper than a regular gearbox because the sprockets wouldn’t need any fancy machining to allow shifting.

That website is horrible and the link to the video is broken.

Sorry about that. Who would have thought that it would be difficult finding a decent link for a product that went nowhere 15 years ago 😉

Here’s a link to a chap who was trying the same thing recently but he seems to have given up as well (video in the first comment):

https://www.facebook.com/pedalmotive/photos/a.447043472159227/1009319905931578/

Looks like he’s designed it so that it shifts to the smaller cog a split second before shifting to the larger cog.

Has no one revisited the Honda system of just moving the whole cassette?

Has no one revisited the Honda system of just moving the whole cassette?

Williams Racing Products (no, not that one) are doing just that.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CgGybhmBOXu/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

thols2

It might actually be better to do away with the derailleur idea and have a chain permanently running on each pair of sprockets. Use one regular cassette but have the sprockets on the other cassette freewheeling by default, with the shift mechanism using dogs to lock one sprocket at a time to the output shaft.

That would mean the weight of two cassettes, one of them with twelve freewheels, plus twelve (or whatever) chains, and the friction of moving all of it all the time.

Williams Racing Products (no, not that one) are doing just that.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CgGybhmBOXu/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Looks like a cool idea as well. Although I can’t understand why they wouldn’t have their pivot and the axle holding the cassette in the same place.

Didn’t Shimano patent this cassette-in-a-box idea?

I’ve designed a two-speed system similar to @thols2 but with a chain on each side of the bike – the dog clutch just switches between the two. Like singlespeeding but better.

Didn’t Shimano patent this cassette-in-a-box idea?

They patented their own design although since the Phaser was around in 2007 I don’t think they can have the idea of shifting between two cassettes all to themselves.

That would mean the weight of two cassettes, one of them with twelve freewheels, plus twelve (or whatever) chains, and the friction of moving all of it all the time.

They wouldn’t need freewheels, just a bushing. The gears that aren’t engaged would not be under load so the friction would be minimal. It would be sealed and have an oil bath for lubrication so you could use aluminium sprockets. It would definitely be heavier than a regular derailleur system but I think it would be cheaper to build than a normal gearbox and should be reliable and simple enough to be overhauled by home mechanics.

Edit: Also, by using a finer pitch chain you could make the sprockets much smaller than a regular cassette so they would be much lighter.

That would mean the weight of two cassettes, one of them with twelve freewheels, plus twelve (or whatever) chains, and the friction of moving all of it all the time.

Isn’t that basically how the pinion works, but with the gears constantly meshed rather than chain driven?

It would definitely be heavier than a regular derailleur system but I think it would be cheaper to build than a normal gearbox and should be reliable and simple enough to be overhauled by home mechanics.

Initially I didn’t like that idea but it does address one of my main concerns about using a single chain which is wear. Given the fact that the chain is much shorter presumably the life of a single chain would be much shorter?

Isn’t that basically how the pinion works, but with the gears constantly meshed rather than chain driven?

I think the main advantage of this system you be that you could mount one cassette on the crank axle and another on an axle that also housed the pivot (hence why I wondered if the new found love for high pivots mean something like the Phaser makes more sense). Something similar to the Starling Sturn or Beady Little Eye where the pivot doubles as a bottom bracket if that makes any sense.

With a two cassette solution (or a Williams Racing Products type solution) you aren’t limited about where you can position the pivot.

Isn’t that basically how the pinion works, but with the gears constantly meshed rather than chain driven?

Exactly, it’s how regular manual gearboxes in cars work. Thing with gears is that they’re expensive to machine. Chains and sprockets don’t need to be so precise so I think it would be much cheaper to make, but less compact, I guess.

There are lots of different options and designs but they all have a compromise somewhere & the standard derailleur system is still the best combination of compromises.

The real development in gearboxes will likely come through the ebike side of things.

There are lots of different options and designs but they all have a compromise somewhere & the standard derailleur system is still the best combination of compromises.

True, but on the other hand the derailleur has been compromised by high pivot designs which opens up opportunities to start looking more seriously at other designs. If you’re going to have to put an idler in or completely redesign the derailleur system (like with Lal) then it opens the door to ditch the derailleur and look at equally simple but less tested ideas.

The real development in gearboxes will likely come through the ebike side of things.

The only problem with that is that they’ve already put the motor where the gearbox should go.

High pivot, idler bikes an 2 stage drivetrains ain’t new, go back 20 odd years an the likes of Balfa, BMW and (IIRC) Sunn were doing it.

It’s not that gearboxes aren’t an attractive idea for lots of reasons, but what’s really in it for the big boys, if they go and sell you a Gearbox bike that’s incredibly durable and reliable, they lose your custom for a decade or so, if it’s not incredibly durable and reliable for a decade or so they’ve ripped the customers off… The promise of reliable, durable gearboxes is precisely why there’s no real rush from the likes of Shimano and SRAM to get them to market, an extra sprocket or leccy shifting on the other hand makes great business sense for them…

At the end of the day derailleurs still work, are affordable, replaceable and efficient. They’re just about imperfect enough to make good business sense for their manufacturers too…

In fairness bicycle “gearboxes” have been available for longer than the MTB has existed, planetary hubs offer a lot of the benefits people seem to want from gearboxes, and several designs have repurposed them as frame mounted, readymade gearboxes (Millyard, GT, Zerode, Lahar all had a pop at this concept) but none of these has ever quite stuck… Perhaps the true market appetite for gearbox bikes has just been over-estimated?

The only problem with that is that they’ve already put the motor where the gearbox should go.

Hmmm, but then there’s nothing to stop Bosch turning up with a smaller, lower powered motor and using the rest of their space for a gearbox? They’d be in a good position as they could market it to OEM’s as a package as it’s the OEM’s that could see the value in it costing £500-£1000 more, but saving them the cost of a drive chain.

Perhaps the true market appetite for gearbox bikes has just been over-estimated?

I suspect everyone would like a gearbox.

They just don’t want it to weigh, cost or drag more than a derailleur. Which so far has been impossible.

Perhaps the true market appetite for gearbox bikes has just been over-estimated?

Strictly speaking, it could be argued that what we’re talking about here aren’t actually gearboxes. Sure, you could enclose them but you could also just leave them open to the elements because they are still just chains and cogs.

When it comes to full suspension bikes, I don’t think it’s arguable that derailleurs impose some serious limitations on the design (you would think manufacturers would be embarrassed enough to change things when it was shown that their bikes were faster without chains than with but apparently not).

It’s interesting reading that thread about whether racing results affect your buying decisions. Certainly idlers seem to win races and high pivot idler bikes seem to be getting more acceptable.

It just seems to me that if you need to put an idler on your derailleur system to make it work you’re more than halfway to admitting that it’s time to ditch it and figure out a simple system of changing gear that doesn’t affect the suspension so badly.

Here you go…

It took GT a decade to go from a fun, working concept to a product that barely anyone purchased (it was pretty expensive TBF).

For me that sort of sums up the contradictions between what the consumer says they want, and what they’ll actually spend their money on…

It just seems to me that if you need to put an idler on your derailleur system to make it work you’re more than halfway to admitting that it’s time to ditch it and figure out a simple system of changing gear that doesn’t affect the suspension so badly.

Does it really affect us mortals?
High pivot and high pivot Gearboxes have been available before, and didn’t do anything that special sales wise, if your mech is noticeably messing with the performance of your suspension, turn the clutch off and zip tie an old inner tube to the chainstay…

Does it really affect us mortals?
High pivot and high pivot Gearboxes have been available before, and didn’t do anything that special sales wise, if your mech is noticeably messing with the performance of your suspension, turn the clutch off…

Not right now but then full suspension and disc brakes didn’t affect us mere mortals when they first started winning races either…

I did hear rumours that some pro-riders would have a ‘dummy’ smooth cog in the middle of their cassettes in order to remove the effect of the chain on particularly rough sections. The problem goes way beyond the clutch.

There’s definitely something about gearboxes (at least fully enclosed gearboxes) that is off putting. I ran an Alfine on my hardtail trail bike for years. There was loads that I liked about it but ultimately I just didn’t like the feel of it while pedaling. Literally everything else about it was superior to derailleurs but the feel while pedaling is very important and that’s the major barrier to gearboxes, imo.

I don’t think the Phaser solution would have that issue, it’s just two chains both with a perfect chainline. If high pivot idler bikes become common I would say the Phaser would actually start to feel better than an idler while pedaling in addition to being superior in every other way.

Strictly speaking, it could be argued that what we’re talking about here aren’t actually gearboxes. Sure, you could enclose them but you could also just leave them open to the elements because they are still just chains and cogs.

You would have to be an utter pedant to make that argument. They are an enclosed transmission. People who ride derailleur equipped bikes still talk about “changing gears”, so the enclosed transmission is a set of gears in a box.

A gearset will still function if it’s open to the elements too, just not for as long as if it’s sealed and lubricated properly.

High pivot bikes keep being mentioned but unless you’re putting your drive through it (like Effigear, unlike Pinion) you still need a chain tensioner which will likely end up by the rear wheel.

Don’t get me wrong, I like gearboxes, I’ve had loads of IGH systems but they will never be more than a niche in a niche.

You would have to be an utter pedant to make that argument. They are an enclosed transmission. People who ride derailleur equipped bikes still talk about “changing gears”, so the enclosed transmission is a set of gears in a box.

A gearset will still function if it’s open to the elements too, just not for as long as if it’s sealed and lubricated properly.

I don’t think it is being pedantic. If you accept that, on the one side, you have the Pinion (very much a ‘gearbox’) and on the other a conventional 1X system (on ‘open’ system, if you like) then the Phaser is going to sit somewhere between the two.

And the Lal system is going to sit somewhere between the Phaser and the conventional 1X with part of the gear change duties moved from the rear axle to the BB area.

The system you described earlier would sit somewhere between the Phaser and the Pinion given the fact it would have a separate chain for each cog rather a single chain moving between cogs, imo.

I’m not sure what exactly the definition of a gearbox is but in my mind it’s a system of gears that has to be enclosed for it to work for any length of time. Systems that use chains hold their own lubrication within the rollers so it’s not a requirement that they be enclosed and lubricated.

At least, that’s the way I think about it.

High pivot bikes keep being mentioned but unless you’re putting your drive through it (like Effigear, unlike Pinion) you still need a chain tensioner which will likely end up by the rear wheel

That’s literally why I started this thread.

If you managed combine a Phaser with a Starling Sturn you wouldn’t need any tensioner.

There’s definitely something about gearboxes (at least fully enclosed gearboxes) that is off putting.

I don’t think it’s that, more the inertia of having to move to a completely different drivetrain. Folks understand mechs, they’re simple, reliable, serviceable at home,and universal. Now that there’s only one on a bike, and thank God it’s the less fiddly one, and (certainly SRAM)  12sp is hardwearing, and doesn’t go out of tension/tune easily and chains last an age…The motivation to change away from them is even less appealing.

I don’t think it is being pedantic.

It’s pretty much the epitome of pedantry.

It’s pretty much the epitome of pedantry.

Well, thanks for taking the time to read and understand what I wrote.

Personally I think it’s a fairly clear distinction. Gearboxes (Pinion, effigear, rohloff, alfine, etc) use teeth and therefore need a lubricated enclosure to run.

Open systems (conventional 1X, Lal, Phaser, etc) rely on the rollers of the chains being lubricated and therefore don’t have to be enclosed.

Open systems and gearbox systems feel very different when pedaling so it’s not a pedantic distinction, imo.

I don’t think it’s that, more the inertia of having to move to a completely different drivetrain. Folks understand mechs, they’re simple, reliable, serviceable at home,and universal. Now that there’s only one on a bike, and thank God it’s the less fiddly one, and (certainly SRAM) 12sp is hardwearing, and doesn’t go out of tension/tune easily and chains last an age…The motivation to change away from them is even less appealing.

Pretty much everything you said there could equally apply the Phaser or the Williams Racing Products system.

The point is that if people are prepared to put up with idlers and the Lal system then maybe people are at a point where they are ready to go with a solution that actually fixes the various problems with derailleurs.

Or maybe not.

Personally I think it’s a fairly clear distinction. Gearboxes (Pinion, effigear, rohloff, alfine, etc) use teeth and therefore need a lubricated enclosure to run.

Open systems (conventional 1X, Lal, Phaser, etc) rely on the rollers of the chains being lubricated and therefore don’t have to be enclosed.

You can make gear systems using rollers too, they don’t have to be sliding teeth.

However, the reason it’s pedantic is that “gearbox” is a very general term to refer to an enclosed transmission. It’s like people arguing about whether tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable. (They are both).

BruceWee
That’s literally why I started this thread.

If you managed combine a Phaser with a Starling Sturn you wouldn’t need any tensioner.

Fair point but its still a compromised design, yes your gears are all enclosed but you also miss out on being able to tune anti-squat, wheel path, adjustable shock tune, floating pivot, yes these are all mainly the pivot point & not the gearing but its still a niche gearing on a niche bike.

Due to brand awareness & market trends & just things like spare parts I doubt anyone who is after a gearbox bike would go for a modern Phaser style over a Pinion.

Gearboxes (Pinion, effigear, rohloff, alfine, etc) use teeth and therefore need a lubricated enclosure to run.

Here’s a picture of some gears that don’t use a lubricated enclosure.

However, the reason it’s pedantic is that “gearbox” is a very general term to refer to an enclosed transmission.

OK, but my point is that you currently have two distinct systems, one that uses chains and one that uses toothed gears.

In my opinion chains are nicer to pedal. Like I said, the Alfine I was running was superior in almost every way but the feeling of pedaling it is enough for me to not run it off road anymore.

I’ve read a lot of people making the same complaints about Pinions, effigear, etc so I don’t think I’m the only one that has this opinion. Basically if you can get over the feeling when pedaling then gearboxes are a no-brainer but it’s a big if.

The only problem with that is that they’ve already put the motor where the gearbox should go.

@brucewee its been done

https://www.intra-drive.com/

i`m hoping this comes to market before my shimano motor expires.

Fair point but its still a compromised design, yes your gears are all enclosed but you also miss out on being able to tune anti-squat, wheel path, adjustable shock tune, floating pivot, yes these are all mainly the pivot point & not the gearing but its still a niche gearing on a niche bike.

Actually, the point is that you wouldn’t be limited in your pivot placement in the same way you are with an Effigear. You could use any distance you liked between cassettes and adjust the number of links in the chain length, probably with something like an EBB for fine tuning.

It would give you more options than an old Effigear but less than a new one or a Pinion with a twin drive on the pivot or a jack drive / opposite side drive.

The thing with a derailleur is that everyone has decided the best way of doing it, no one has agreed on the best way of doing a gear box. Someone probably will reinvent / reapply / redesign the Phaser but it’ll still be a random small outfit.

The point is that if people are prepared to put up with idlers and the Lal system

Are they? I mean idler bikes have been on sales for a while now, and still only a few companies make them, I think you’d have to go out of your way to buy one, and How many LAL Nicolai frames have been ordered d’you think? I don’t think I’d be in hurry to buy a frame that can only use one type of shifter that’s currently assembled from the managed parts of a Shimano mech.

 ready to go with a solution that actually fixes the various problems with derailleurs.

Of all the issues I have with MTB’s the “problems” with mechs are pretty low on the list for me at least.

nickc
I don’t think I’d be in hurry to buy a frame that can only use one type of shifter

That’s the thing, would I buy a bike with a gearbox? Yes, its not really any different to buying an ebike, you cannot swap between Bosch, Shimano, Yamaha etc.

Would I buy a bike with a gearbox that isn’t widely supported? No, not even if it was cobbled together from mainly existing off the shelf parts.

Yeah I get the idea of Pinion and mid placement appeals, then I look at the frame, and…nope.

The natural partner for a gearbox on a bike is a motor. If they feel wierd or draggy to pedal, or are heavier, then that will be masked somewhat by the assistance of the motor.

I won’t buy an ebike until all that extra torque is put to better use than destroying expensive cassettes.

Of all the issues I have with MTB’s the “problems” with mechs are pretty low on the list for me at least.

If there’s a more delicate and exposed yet essential component on a bike I’m not sure what it would be.

In addition, there isn’t a component that causes more compromises on rear suspension design than the derailleur (ever noticed how simple motocross suspension is?)

Just out of interest, what would be top of your list because rear derailleurs have ended more rides for me than every other mechanical combined.