1 Question - What's Keeping the Gearbox Down?
 |
Sure, there have been a few examples that have made production - GT's IT-1 downhill bike and those Lahar's that looked like they were lifted from a Ridley Scott movie come to mind - but saying that either was "commercially available" in any real quantities could be debated. These days, New Zealand's Zerode is leading the canned-gearing charge with their G2 downhill bike that employs a Shimano Alfine 8-speed hub as a gearbox, and the new Taniwha all-mountain rig with a carbon frame that's molded to work with a 12-speed Pinion transmission. Both bikes are also about as commonly seen as a giant squid.
A few boutique brands aside, you won't see a gearbox on any mass-produced mountain bike. So... why is that? If the idea makes so much sense, why don't we have a slew of Giant, Trek, and Specialized all-mountain and downhill bikes with gearboxes bolted to them to choose from?
The simplest reason might make the most sense: as cool as a gearbox bike might be, we don't actually need them. In a recent Pinkbike Poll questioning the reliability of derailleurs, over 6,500 of the 10,000 replies stated that it had either been more than two years since they broke a derailleur, they couldn't even remember the last time they broke one, or that they've never even had an issue. And over 9,000 readers also said that they rarely have issues at all, or that they're at least moderately happy with their current drivetrain.
Is it a case of the vocal minority, then? Because while there might be hundreds of comments begging for a gearbox on any article that even mentions the topic, it looks like the actual demand and numbers of people willing to spend money on such a bike is far, far smaller than it appears.
Then again, maybe a lot of consumers are thinking wrong. ''If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses,'' some apparently successful business guy named Henry Ford once said. And he was probably right. Innovative products, technology, and manufacturing methods are created not by the average consumer, but rather by visionaries who can, in a way, see the future, even if they are dreams driven by dollars and euros. Could Shimano, SRAM, Pinion and others solve the issues associated with gearboxes such as friction, weight, and how they attach? Maybe, but even if they could, would it make any business sense to do such a thing? If Honda couldn't justify it, the answer might be 'no.' Or is there really a conspiracy, as some seem to believe, to make sure we keep buying SLX and X01 derailleurs, or do gearboxes just not make any sense?
Below, I talk to some of the companies and people who have the ability to change the drivetrain landscape, and some of them are trying to do exactly that while others explain why a derailleur-based system is still the answer. - Mike Levy
Rob Metz - Zerode
If you want a gearbox bike these days, you'll likely be considering one of Metz's creations. His G1 and G2 downhill bikes have employed a frame-mounted Shimano Alfine hub as a gearbox for years, and his new Taniwha all-mountain design is built around a Pinion gearbox.
If you want a gearbox bike these days, you'll likely be considering one of Metz's creations. His G1 and G2 downhill bikes have employed a frame-mounted Shimano Alfine hub as a gearbox for years, and his new Taniwha all-mountain design is built around a Pinion gearbox.
 |
It should be the norm, but it's not because it's hard to do right. Just ''putting a gearbox on a bike'' won't work; it needs careful consideration of materials, suspension design and geometry to get the bike and the gearbox to perform as one. Some gearbox bikes have been over complicated in the past; it's gone beyond the riding experience to become a design statement that's all about the gearbox and not about the riding experience. Often, adding a gearbox has been seen as a reason to push other boundaries on geometry or material. While these are still great bikes, the combination of so many new ideas in a single bike has overwhelmed the everyday rider.
When done well, simplicity is beautiful and powerful, but it's incredibly hard to achieve. To succeed, a gearbox bike needs to be simple, and it needs to start from a desire for a better riding experience rather than a desire ''to put a gearbox onto a bike.''
The number one reason why gearboxes have not become the norm is that people don't want to buy a gearbox - they want to buy a riding experience, and until now gearboxes bikes have been all about the gearbox. When you jump on a Taniwha, the first thing you notice is how nicely it rides, and only then do you realize it's got a gearbox. - Rob Metz
Joe Lawwill - Mountain Bike Marketing, Shimano
Lawwill spent well over a decade racing downhill at the highest level, and even collected a World Championship win as a Master in 2002. You're more likely to see him at an enduro race these days, however, and yes, he's still fast as hell.
Lawwill spent well over a decade racing downhill at the highest level, and even collected a World Championship win as a Master in 2002. You're more likely to see him at an enduro race these days, however, and yes, he's still fast as hell.
|
As far as I know, there is no gearbox tech that can match the efficiency of a chain system, even when bad chain lines are factored in. Pinion does, however, have an interesting system that has a nice solution for keeping friction to a minimum, and Zerode is releasing a really slick looking bike using the Pinion gearbox that I am very interested in trying. According to their specs, the weight for the frame is very competitive, but specific drag comparisons to a traditional chain and derailleur are not noted. The overall cost is a bit high, but hey, as long as the amount of drag is acceptable and it truly performs, then to me it may be worth it, but maybe not for everyone.
Aside from the drag issue, you have to consider what this means to the bike brands who have invested heavily in their current systems. Nothing they are making now is directly compatible with a gearbox, so this means re-developing, potentially from the ground up, and expensive carbon molds. So the short answer as to why you don't see gearbox bikes everywhere is it's a HUGE commitment by the bike brands to come to the market with a completely new bike that uses a less efficient system than we are accustomed to, and that doesn't have a high demand. My guess is no bike brand is getting an onslaught of letters demanding them to produce gear box bikes...
But, as we have learned with the variety of wheel sizes, geometries, and suspension travel, there is no perfect do-it-all setup. We have trade-offs everywhere we turn, so maybe giving up a little in the efficiency department is worth it. For some, it's not, and some just fear change so there is no guarantee that if a company rolled the dice that it would pay off. The overall bike industry is pretty soft, especially in the downhill segment, so asking brands to invest a lot of money in new designs to only sell a relatively small number of frames is not going to get the thumbs up from George in accounting, so there is a very real gamble that could literally bury a company. Also, you have to consider that bike shops across the land are not going to be carrying replacement parts right away, and they are not going to be trained on how to service the gearboxes either. Both fairly easy issues to solve, but they will require time and money, which would be a gamble for them as well.
Aside from the investment of bringing it to market, you have to think about the challenges of the gearbox itself. It has to be more durable, light enough, and cost effective for it to be welcomed. Overall bike costs for those carbon trail bikes and DH bikes we love so much are already so high, and asking people to pay more for a likely heavier bike that is harder to pedal may not appeal to the general consumer. So add that concern to the minds of a manufacturer and it's less and less of a mystery why you don't see gearbox bikes everywhere.
Our current drivetrains, and I don't mean just Shimano's, but any traditional drivetrain, is so exposed that it almost seems crazy that we consider this as acceptable, but the reality is it works pretty damn well. No, it's not perfect but it's damn good, and with it I am able to enjoy the great outdoors. I hear people get upset at Shimano for spending time making relatively minimal improvements to the derailleur while they think Shimano should be spending all of their time on gearboxes. I have read comments where people actually call Shimano stupid for trying to improve the derailleur, but these people might want to stop and realize for a moment that Shimano doesn't just have just a couple engineers. Time spent improving existing tech is not taking away from future tech. There is a full-time dedicated team constantly working on future technology.
Is Shimano developing a gearbox? I will neither confirm nor deny anything regarding that, but I can say that if Shimano were able to make something truly superior and had the major bike brands' commitment, it would be something we would push to make happen. Like it or not, the development of electronic shifting and e-bikes is actually going to help the realization of gearboxes. At least that is my prediction. Bike brands are already learning to build bikes around e-bike motors, and going to a gearbox design would not be too much a departure. What if frames were made so that you could have it interchangeable between a gearbox and an e-bike motor?
Let's hope getting gearboxes mainstream is not impossible, and one day, in the not so distant future, we see it happen. I for one am willing to compromise a little to get the benefits the gearboxes offer on some of my bikes, but on my XC race bikes I am not willing to give up any of my precious watts, and I don't think I am alone, so don't expect continued development of traditional derailleurs to stop anytime soon. - Joe Lawwill
Greg Minnaar - Santa Cruz
The Santa Cruz Syndicate racer's resume is the stuff of legend: three-time World Champion, three World Cup overall titles, and the winningest male downhill racer of all-time. Oh, and he used to race for this little outfit called G-Cross Honda on the RN-01, a gearbox bike with Showa suspension.
The Santa Cruz Syndicate racer's resume is the stuff of legend: three-time World Champion, three World Cup overall titles, and the winningest male downhill racer of all-time. Oh, and he used to race for this little outfit called G-Cross Honda on the RN-01, a gearbox bike with Showa suspension.
|
I think that the challenges that come up now include drag. Running two chains in a gearbox is what we fought against a lot at Honda, and still having the bike coast as fast as possible, which was really tough. So the drag was kind of a big thing, and although we brought it down considerably, it still didn't coast as fast as a [bike with a] traditional drivetrain. Another thing that makes it tough is how it sits in the frame. You'd have every bike design having to be configured around a gearbox, but right now, with a traditional drivetrain it allows you to be a little more creative with frame design. Unless one of the bike brands went and designed their own gearbox, I don't see it working spread through a bunch of different bikes. I think trying to create a gearbox or internal gearing through a hub is kind of drawing away from the handling of the bike. To bring that up into the center of the frame is key, but at the same time, you're just creating drag.
So I think there are a few things that have stalled it out, one just being the design. If you had a gearbox you could buy, and you had to build a frame around it, I think it limits the design considerably. And you know, we're in an industry where consumers like to buy something different. If I go onto Pinkbike, I read all the comments about why a bike has got a certain leverage ratio and this or that, and this ''blogger,'' if that's the right term to call them, prefers a 62-degree head angle. It's quite technical and guys quite like to be different, as well as have a great acronym for their suspension design.
So I think that's what's really holding this back. But, at the same time, it's nice to have a variety of bikes. We've got a lot of different brands to choose from, and they all have something different to their suspension or in their frame design, and the gearbox would definitely hold that back a lot. - Greg Minnaar
Wacek Kipszak - Opinionated Consumer
Better known as 'Waki Designs' here on Pinkbike, Kipszak is both one of our most prolific and eccentric commenters, as well as being a mountain biker and consumer with some strong opinions.
For me, the gearbox is a no-brainer for DH bikes and maybe for trail bikes. Companies say that all they do is to push the boundaries of the bike design, and moving up to 400-grams from the unsprung mass to the place where weight matters the least sounds like the way to go. Even at the cost of a full kilogram added to a total weight of the bike. Two of the three suspension specialists I asked before writing this confirmed without much doubt that each bump shaves less speed off the bike, covering up for lesser pedaling efficiency with a surplus. The industry is boasting with enthusiasm about increasing rear wheel stiffness, and making the freehub much narrower to fit only one cog instead of a whole cassette would definitely improve that. The issue is that companies focus on safe ways of making 'gear bucks.'
The last time someone put their balls on the table was SRAM with their XX1, which instantly revolutionized the way we spin circles and keep chains on. Small companies naturally can, and must have, the courage, because there is no other way they can win against the big guns. It is easy to incorporate a standard drivetrain into the frame design - all you need is a derailleur hanger and cable guides. Drivetrain companies are reliable suppliers with a wide offering of products suiting budgets and needs of their clients. No matter what you get from whom, everything fits that bloody derailleur hanger. It's harder with the gearbox because different companies make gearboxes in different shapes, and there are different frame mounts. However, development of e-bikes shows that manufacturers can agree on a mounting standard for a large chunk of machinery in the BB area.
What troubles me most is riders buying into this game. Eagle and Di2 are the evolution of the drivetrain, and yes, shifting quality goes up, but who on earth negotiates rocks on a steep climb at a high pulse rate, or tries to fit a few pedal strokes down a gnarly track - you know, doing mountain biking - and thinks: ''I wish my drivetrain shifted smoother! Those big gaps between gears are soooo annoying! I haven't readjusted my rear mech for eight months and it shifts badly!'' Of course, if you ride on a fire road for a few hours, first world problems find their way into your thoughts, things like how a gearbox is up to 10-percent less efficient. Good, I say, as my ride will be five minutes longer, but I wish I were home, eating snacks and watching cat videos on my phone! Even the large portion of the downhill crowd is on the derailed bus: ''Aaaaaaaah, I put a total of one-hundred pedal strokes through a whole weekend of park riding, but with a gearbox I would need to make ten more to be just as fast! Whoops, there goes my X01 DH derailleur.''
So while I find it understandable why we see so few gearboxes on bikes, it is always a good time to make that huge step and increase bio-diversity of bicycle design and put these gearboxes on DH bikes. If companies are really into gaining seconds, they should put the money where their mouth is and make gearboxes a reality. SRAM and Shimano can make a gearbox better and more reliable than Pinion; I have no doubt about it. Another thing I think about as an architect and aesthetics snob is the fact that gearbox'd bikes used to be rather ugly or just not mainstream enough. But the beautiful and exciting Zerode Taniwha seems to be a great candidate to change the image of a gearbox bike being a weirdo. - Wacek Kipszak
Widespread acceptance of a geared transmission is farther off the horizon now than it was only a handful of years ago, in spite of the fact that a number of promising examples have been put into production. SRAM's successful campaign to ditch the front derailleur is the primary reason. The most compelling arguments for a gearbox versus the existing derailleur have been: simplified, one-lever shifting; evenly spaced gear selections with no overlaps; sealed, lubricated, all-weather reliability with fewer exposed parts to break; and one precise sprocket location to stabilize rear-suspension kinematics. SRAM's 11-speed one-by derailleur transmission, and its more recent Eagle 12-speed system, covered most of those bases. Simple, one-lever shifting - check. Fewer exposed parts to break - check. Chainring diameters stabilized around 32 teeth - check. Evenly spaced gear selections with no overlaps - not perfect, but pretty close.
Presently, if one assumes that price, weight, and efficiency are equal, only two arguments remain in favor of the gearbox: It can be lubricated and sealed against the elements, and its gears can be arranged to provide exact and evenly spaced selections between shifts. Without belaboring the point, the reason a chain and sprocket cannot provide even steps across a cassette is because all of the sprocket teeth are constrained by the chain to a half-inch pitch; SRAM's designers can't have a perfect 13-percent step between gears. Instead, they must choose the sprockets that best match and live with the result. Look at the inside of the Pinion gearbox and you may notice that the gears use a wide variety of tooth profiles. They altered the pitch of the teeth to achieve nearly perfect jumps across the entire range of the transmission.
Before I move to a final analysis, there is a big equalizer - the elephant in the room - that must be addressed before any arguments for or against the rear derailleur can be posed. If bike makers switched to gearboxes today, the two weakest links of the present system would still remain on most mountain bikes. The vision of the ultimate gearbox bike - the sleek unencumbered profile, the all-weather Gates Carbon belt drive, paired with the integrated gearbox - is a hardtail, and most of us ride full-suspension bikes. So, the final drive of most production gearbox bikes would most likely be a roller chain and, because of the variable chain lengths created by the most-wanted suspension designs, there is going to be a chain tensioner (like the jockey cage that hangs below a rear derailleur) at the rear axle to compensate for that, probably with a clutch mechanism. Presently then, the viability of a mass-produced all-mountain gearbox bike hinges on whether evenly spaced shifts and a sealed, long-wearing transmission are compelling enough reasons for bike makers to risk making them, and tempting enough to send customers rushing to buy them. I doubt either will happen in the near future.
![Domahidy Designs Titanium All-Mountain Pinion Hardtail 2016]()
The gearbox reality check is that they are substantially heavier and more expensive than a derailleur transmission and, in the best case scenario, fall significantly short of its efficiency. And bike makers must be brave enough sell a design that looks different - and to dedicate their frame designs to one specific gearbox, knowing that there will be no alternative should a problem arise, or another maker shows up with a more appealing transmission. The very existence of all-mountain and downhill bikes, however, proves that price, weight, and efficiency are not paramount concerns for customers, and bike makers' recent rush to build dedicated frames for e-motors has proven that the Specializeds and Treks of the world would build gearbox bikes in a heartbeat - but not unless it was a sure bet. Say what you will, it's a rare moment in history when a major bike brand has the courage to stand alone (Cannondale comes to mind) and market a truly innovative or even a significantly different looking product. They may put a bike length ahead of the peloton, but if nobody follows, the ''innovators'' quickly fade back into the safety of the pack.
In the end, riders will decide if the gearbox is important enough to succeed. The sport is maturing, which creates customers who are more inclined to purchase a sure bet, keep it for a few years, and then buy a new, improved version. If they push the paddles and the transmission always shifts - which is most often the case - then I doubt today's enthusiasts will find cause to make a dynamic move to a gearbox bike.
I am far from a hater. The gearbox concept, in some form, is arguably the next step for the market's elite, long-travel segment, and should a major player muster the courage to commit to the concept (along with the cash to successfully market it), I have no doubt that their followers will rush in to claim ownership of the trend. It's what we do best. - Richard Cunningham
First, the gearbox has a bad reputation. We’ve seen a lot of projects being a big failure and enforcing the idea of “gearbox is heavy.” It’s not the case anymore; of course, gearbox bikes aren’t the lightest on the market, but you can easily build a ready to shred enduro bike under 13.5kg (29lbs) with an aluminum frame. The most important thing isn’t the bike’s weight, but it’s the weight in the position on the bike.
Second, a gearbox bike is more expensive because fewer units are made. On a bike's lifetime, the gearbox will be cheaper on maintenance than a traditional drivetrain which at the end makes the gearbox bike cheaper than a regular one. This is feedback from users who are bored of maintenance on their drivetrains. Even if current drivetrains become much more reliable than they are, after a year you have to change parts (cassette, chain, etc) if you’re lucky and haven't crashed it during this first year of riding. For example, our gearbox has a five-year of warranty, so you only have to change the secondary transmission every two years with a belt drive.
Third, it's a new standard. You can’t place a gearbox on a regular bike. So it looks bad at first look but, regarding bike design, it gives more opportunities in term of frame design and kinematic optimization (higher swing arm pivot, no kickback effect, stiffness and symmetry of the rear arm, etc.) I’ve been in discussion with a few designers from big bike companies, but most of them want to try a gearbox “on an existing bike” which has been developed and optimized for a derailleur; the chain line will be slightly different and the bike won’t work properly with that.
Maybe it doesn’t have to become the norm. I think it’s more an alternative for riders who don’t want to use their bike as a ready to trash product that they change every year and want to spend less time on maintaining their bike. E-bikes are also a good opportunity for us. A gearbox can provide a good solution to difficulties that derailleur meets with electrical motors. We are actually working on this.- David Roumeas
The main reason that gearboxes aren't becoming the norm is pretty simple. The dream (low maintenance, less damage) hasn't been fully delivered to have them meet reality yet. In reality, the biggest problem is cost and availability. The cost of a currently commercially available gearbox would increase bike cost by a few grand, and it's unclear if anybody really has enough issues with damaged derailleurs and worn cassettes to pay that much for a bike. And if we designed a frame around a gearbox, it's unclear if the manufacturer would support that transmission with spare parts to fulfill the promise of durability. The bike industry doesn't have a great track record on this, so confidence is understandably low that a new ''gearbox hub standard'' won't get super-Boosted and have three different axles shortly after the first one is introduced.
Not only is cost a significant barrier, but the complaints about downhill drivetrains that were valid ten years ago have been greatly improved upon in recent years as well. With 1x (and 1x7 for downhill), we've gotten rid of the negative attributes of old drivetrains that I think are in people's minds who are in favor of gearboxes. We now have chainrings that don't drop the chain as easily, gear ranges equaling multi-ring setups of old, and we've created clearance near the crank to allow for more design freedom on the frame. Everything works really well, is light, and you have forward and backward compatibility.
![2017 Santa Cruz Models]()
There are a number of technical reasons that explain why gearboxes haven't gotten traction commercially, despite the populist outlook either. Those include weight, packaging difficulties (how to get geometry, shock fitting, etc..), efficiency loss, gear range and adjustability, compatibility with existing components, as well as testing and support at a World Cup racing level that needs financial backing from drivetrain makers. And that's without getting into the specific challenges they pose to suspension design - which is non-trivial. But those problems are solvable if the right solution came along with the support of riders to give something new a try.
As if that wasn't enough, a final blow: for Santa Cruz, we believe in providing long-term support on our bikes, so if a gearbox failed and the manufacturer stopped producing that particular model or went out of business, and there wasn't a competitor that could replace it, we risk having a rider who has one of our bikes with no ability to find a transmission to make it go. No matter how annoying derailleurs are, they're interchangeable, which gives you the option to take one off and find another to bolt on. Losing that is unacceptable to us. We're open to the concept but have a pragmatic stance - we don't want any rides missed based on decisions we made. - Joe Graney
There were several failed attempts over the past few years to develop a central gearbox, but Pinion was the first company to offer a genuine alternative with many advantages over conventional derailleur-based systems. This is demonstrated by more than seventy OEMs [original equipment spec - Ed.] and many thousands of satisfied customers. We believe that after decades on the market there is no further innovative power that can be seen for derailleur systems other than cosmetic improvements. However, there will be plenty to see in the coming years for gearboxes, with our Pinion technology being just at its beginning.
Better known as 'Waki Designs' here on Pinkbike, Kipszak is both one of our most prolific and eccentric commenters, as well as being a mountain biker and consumer with some strong opinions.
|
The last time someone put their balls on the table was SRAM with their XX1, which instantly revolutionized the way we spin circles and keep chains on. Small companies naturally can, and must have, the courage, because there is no other way they can win against the big guns. It is easy to incorporate a standard drivetrain into the frame design - all you need is a derailleur hanger and cable guides. Drivetrain companies are reliable suppliers with a wide offering of products suiting budgets and needs of their clients. No matter what you get from whom, everything fits that bloody derailleur hanger. It's harder with the gearbox because different companies make gearboxes in different shapes, and there are different frame mounts. However, development of e-bikes shows that manufacturers can agree on a mounting standard for a large chunk of machinery in the BB area.
What troubles me most is riders buying into this game. Eagle and Di2 are the evolution of the drivetrain, and yes, shifting quality goes up, but who on earth negotiates rocks on a steep climb at a high pulse rate, or tries to fit a few pedal strokes down a gnarly track - you know, doing mountain biking - and thinks: ''I wish my drivetrain shifted smoother! Those big gaps between gears are soooo annoying! I haven't readjusted my rear mech for eight months and it shifts badly!'' Of course, if you ride on a fire road for a few hours, first world problems find their way into your thoughts, things like how a gearbox is up to 10-percent less efficient. Good, I say, as my ride will be five minutes longer, but I wish I were home, eating snacks and watching cat videos on my phone! Even the large portion of the downhill crowd is on the derailed bus: ''Aaaaaaaah, I put a total of one-hundred pedal strokes through a whole weekend of park riding, but with a gearbox I would need to make ten more to be just as fast! Whoops, there goes my X01 DH derailleur.''
So while I find it understandable why we see so few gearboxes on bikes, it is always a good time to make that huge step and increase bio-diversity of bicycle design and put these gearboxes on DH bikes. If companies are really into gaining seconds, they should put the money where their mouth is and make gearboxes a reality. SRAM and Shimano can make a gearbox better and more reliable than Pinion; I have no doubt about it. Another thing I think about as an architect and aesthetics snob is the fact that gearbox'd bikes used to be rather ugly or just not mainstream enough. But the beautiful and exciting Zerode Taniwha seems to be a great candidate to change the image of a gearbox bike being a weirdo. - Wacek Kipszak
Richard Cunningham - Tech Editor, Pinkbike
RC has probably forgotten more about bikes than most of us will ever know, thanks to decades in the cycling industry as a designer, frame builder, and journalist.
RC has probably forgotten more about bikes than most of us will ever know, thanks to decades in the cycling industry as a designer, frame builder, and journalist.
|
Presently, if one assumes that price, weight, and efficiency are equal, only two arguments remain in favor of the gearbox: It can be lubricated and sealed against the elements, and its gears can be arranged to provide exact and evenly spaced selections between shifts. Without belaboring the point, the reason a chain and sprocket cannot provide even steps across a cassette is because all of the sprocket teeth are constrained by the chain to a half-inch pitch; SRAM's designers can't have a perfect 13-percent step between gears. Instead, they must choose the sprockets that best match and live with the result. Look at the inside of the Pinion gearbox and you may notice that the gears use a wide variety of tooth profiles. They altered the pitch of the teeth to achieve nearly perfect jumps across the entire range of the transmission.
Before I move to a final analysis, there is a big equalizer - the elephant in the room - that must be addressed before any arguments for or against the rear derailleur can be posed. If bike makers switched to gearboxes today, the two weakest links of the present system would still remain on most mountain bikes. The vision of the ultimate gearbox bike - the sleek unencumbered profile, the all-weather Gates Carbon belt drive, paired with the integrated gearbox - is a hardtail, and most of us ride full-suspension bikes. So, the final drive of most production gearbox bikes would most likely be a roller chain and, because of the variable chain lengths created by the most-wanted suspension designs, there is going to be a chain tensioner (like the jockey cage that hangs below a rear derailleur) at the rear axle to compensate for that, probably with a clutch mechanism. Presently then, the viability of a mass-produced all-mountain gearbox bike hinges on whether evenly spaced shifts and a sealed, long-wearing transmission are compelling enough reasons for bike makers to risk making them, and tempting enough to send customers rushing to buy them. I doubt either will happen in the near future.
The gearbox reality check is that they are substantially heavier and more expensive than a derailleur transmission and, in the best case scenario, fall significantly short of its efficiency. And bike makers must be brave enough sell a design that looks different - and to dedicate their frame designs to one specific gearbox, knowing that there will be no alternative should a problem arise, or another maker shows up with a more appealing transmission. The very existence of all-mountain and downhill bikes, however, proves that price, weight, and efficiency are not paramount concerns for customers, and bike makers' recent rush to build dedicated frames for e-motors has proven that the Specializeds and Treks of the world would build gearbox bikes in a heartbeat - but not unless it was a sure bet. Say what you will, it's a rare moment in history when a major bike brand has the courage to stand alone (Cannondale comes to mind) and market a truly innovative or even a significantly different looking product. They may put a bike length ahead of the peloton, but if nobody follows, the ''innovators'' quickly fade back into the safety of the pack.
In the end, riders will decide if the gearbox is important enough to succeed. The sport is maturing, which creates customers who are more inclined to purchase a sure bet, keep it for a few years, and then buy a new, improved version. If they push the paddles and the transmission always shifts - which is most often the case - then I doubt today's enthusiasts will find cause to make a dynamic move to a gearbox bike.
I am far from a hater. The gearbox concept, in some form, is arguably the next step for the market's elite, long-travel segment, and should a major player muster the courage to commit to the concept (along with the cash to successfully market it), I have no doubt that their followers will rush in to claim ownership of the trend. It's what we do best. - Richard Cunningham
David Roumeas - Effigear
Roumeas is one of the men behind Effigear, a French company who have designed their own sealed gearbox. And if that wasn't enough, he and Guy Cavalerie went on to create their own bike brand, Cavalerie, to mount their gearboxes to.
Roumeas is one of the men behind Effigear, a French company who have designed their own sealed gearbox. And if that wasn't enough, he and Guy Cavalerie went on to create their own bike brand, Cavalerie, to mount their gearboxes to.
|
Second, a gearbox bike is more expensive because fewer units are made. On a bike's lifetime, the gearbox will be cheaper on maintenance than a traditional drivetrain which at the end makes the gearbox bike cheaper than a regular one. This is feedback from users who are bored of maintenance on their drivetrains. Even if current drivetrains become much more reliable than they are, after a year you have to change parts (cassette, chain, etc) if you’re lucky and haven't crashed it during this first year of riding. For example, our gearbox has a five-year of warranty, so you only have to change the secondary transmission every two years with a belt drive.
 |
Third, it's a new standard. You can’t place a gearbox on a regular bike. So it looks bad at first look but, regarding bike design, it gives more opportunities in term of frame design and kinematic optimization (higher swing arm pivot, no kickback effect, stiffness and symmetry of the rear arm, etc.) I’ve been in discussion with a few designers from big bike companies, but most of them want to try a gearbox “on an existing bike” which has been developed and optimized for a derailleur; the chain line will be slightly different and the bike won’t work properly with that.
Maybe it doesn’t have to become the norm. I think it’s more an alternative for riders who don’t want to use their bike as a ready to trash product that they change every year and want to spend less time on maintaining their bike. E-bikes are also a good opportunity for us. A gearbox can provide a good solution to difficulties that derailleur meets with electrical motors. We are actually working on this.- David Roumeas
Joe Graney - CEO, Santa Cruz Bicycles
Graney is one of the main men behind Santa Cruz's Nomad and 5010c designs and, more recently, has transitioned into the company's Chief Operating Officer. Don't let that title fool you - he's still the same straight-talking Joe.
Graney is one of the main men behind Santa Cruz's Nomad and 5010c designs and, more recently, has transitioned into the company's Chief Operating Officer. Don't let that title fool you - he's still the same straight-talking Joe.
|
Not only is cost a significant barrier, but the complaints about downhill drivetrains that were valid ten years ago have been greatly improved upon in recent years as well. With 1x (and 1x7 for downhill), we've gotten rid of the negative attributes of old drivetrains that I think are in people's minds who are in favor of gearboxes. We now have chainrings that don't drop the chain as easily, gear ranges equaling multi-ring setups of old, and we've created clearance near the crank to allow for more design freedom on the frame. Everything works really well, is light, and you have forward and backward compatibility.
There are a number of technical reasons that explain why gearboxes haven't gotten traction commercially, despite the populist outlook either. Those include weight, packaging difficulties (how to get geometry, shock fitting, etc..), efficiency loss, gear range and adjustability, compatibility with existing components, as well as testing and support at a World Cup racing level that needs financial backing from drivetrain makers. And that's without getting into the specific challenges they pose to suspension design - which is non-trivial. But those problems are solvable if the right solution came along with the support of riders to give something new a try.
As if that wasn't enough, a final blow: for Santa Cruz, we believe in providing long-term support on our bikes, so if a gearbox failed and the manufacturer stopped producing that particular model or went out of business, and there wasn't a competitor that could replace it, we risk having a rider who has one of our bikes with no ability to find a transmission to make it go. No matter how annoying derailleurs are, they're interchangeable, which gives you the option to take one off and find another to bolt on. Losing that is unacceptable to us. We're open to the concept but have a pragmatic stance - we don't want any rides missed based on decisions we made. - Joe Graney
Christoph Lermen - Pinion Co-Founder, Engineer
Seen a gearbox on a mountain bike? There's a good chance Lermen had something to do with it. He's also one of the minds behind Pinion's C1.12 gearbox that will appear on trail bikes costing around $3,000.
Seen a gearbox on a mountain bike? There's a good chance Lermen had something to do with it. He's also one of the minds behind Pinion's C1.12 gearbox that will appear on trail bikes costing around $3,000.
|
There are many small and medium-sized OEMs already using Pinion gearboxes successfully in enduro and downhill, including Nicolai, Zerode, Viral, Ventana, and others, but large OEMs have been reluctant to invest in this technology. This is due to the relatively high cost of gearboxes, and the resultant low number of parts in the absolute premium range. But now, with our C-line gearbox, Pinion presents a corresponding solution to this problem. It is now up to these large OEMs to follow the example of companies like Nicolai and Zerode and employ a gearbox in their designs. We're in contact with a number of well-known OEMs, and it has become exciting to see who is a technology leader and will be using our revolutionary drive technology as the first gearbox bike in their catalog. - Christoph Lermen
Chris Hilton - External Drivetrain Product Manager, SRAM
Hilton is the man in charge of SRAM's external drivetrain team, and it's his group that has delivered the company's massively sucsessful single-ring transmissions.
Hilton is the man in charge of SRAM's external drivetrain team, and it's his group that has delivered the company's massively sucsessful single-ring transmissions.
|
To discuss where things are going in the future, you could possibly start by going back in time first. Let's shift the gearbox into ''R'' and see what's back there... Generally speaking, gearboxes for bicycles were first produced a few years before 1900, depending on where you lived, who you believe, and how you look at historical information. I'm not a detailed historian, so don't quote me on the dates. Let's just use it as an approximate time point. Some other notable things occurred around this time. The Wright Brothers first flight was in 1903; the Ford Motor company was founded in 1903; the US Civil War ran from 1861 to 1865; Karl Benz made the world's first true automobile in 1885; the first automobiles were commercially available in 1890; Dunlop made the first pneumatic bike tire in 1888; Fichtel and Sachs (Sachs) was formed to make bicycle hubs in 1895. In 1904 Sachs produced their first gearbox, a 3-speed hub.
I listed the info about Sachs at the end of these historical events because, as you probably know, Sachs bicycle division (in Schweinfurt, Germany) was acquired by SRAM in 1997. This acquisition is the foundation of our drivetrain development center here in Schweinfurt. If you were to walk around this center today, there is plenty of remaining influence from the many years that Sachs pioneered, engineered, developed and manufactured bicycle parts. Among those parts are bicycle gearboxes. Since 1904, more than 100,000,000 (one hundred million!) gearbox hubs have been produced just by Sachs / SRAM. More hundreds of millions by other manufacturers. As you can imagine, there has been a lot of experimentation over the last 112 years. Not just with hubs, but with all kinds of bicycle transmissions; that includes a wide variety of gearboxes. After all, products like Hammerschmidt, SRAM's 2x10, 1x (XX1), and the all new Eagle drivetrain were developed here. It's pretty obvious to a lot of bike riders that SRAM makes drivetrains (we call them External Drivetrains) with derailleurs. It's worth knowing that we also have an awful lot of experience with gearboxes, too! We make them today. To be clear, a gearbox contained in a hub or in the main frame aren't so different. Many of the same functional principles are employed to make them work.
Since I work in product development of our drivetrains, I always like to read the comments Pinkbike readers have regarding our products, or really any products. There are few things that I have learned from reading these comments: Norbs was robbed; everything looks like a Session; gearboxes are the future.
I don't really know where I stand with the first two points. Norbs was certainly underscored. Horribly. But robbery is a serious crime, and saying he was robbed might be a bit of an overstatement or even an accusation. On the third point, though, I can provide some commentary. First of all, gearboxes are absolutely in the future. There is no question that bikes in the future will have gearboxes. They have been around for over 100 years, and they will be around for years to come. There are going to be gear boxes on bikes in the future. Some bikes. But gearboxes aren't the ONLY future. Gearboxes existed long in the past on bicycles. Gearboxes exist today on bicycles. Gearboxes will exist in the future on bicycles. The real question then is: what bicycles will gearboxes be on? And what does a gearbox need to do to be successful? A gearbox is just like every other product on the market, bicycle or otherwise. It's a compromise. There is always a tradeoff among the traits of a product to make it successful. Weight, cost, efficiency, durability, performance, reliability, availability, ease of maintenance, etc...
The myth today seems to be this: ''A gearbox is perfect. Bulletproof, maintenance free, silent, efficient, awesome shifting, perfect suspension, and so much more!'' Well, it ain't. It's a compromise. Everything is a compromise. A gearbox can be many things, but each of those things will cost you other things. Lightweight comes with high-end materials and manufacturing process, and that adds cost. Unless you use plastic! It's cheap, it's light... that subtracts durability. Durability not THAT important to you? Okay, are you ready to disassemble and re-assemble a transmission with 100 small and similar parts? Does less unsprung weight make for better suspension performance? Could be. Are you willing to trade that for significant loss of efficiency? You may blaze the moments of downhill where you aren't pedaling (or not), but your buddies will get sick of waiting for you.
Let's say the industry invested heavily in gearbox development. If a gearbox was highly refined in the future and had significantly fewer drawbacks, would you be willing to pay more for it? How much more? Because that investment in the gearbox itself, plus frames, tooling, mechanic, dealer and other training are all going to add cost. Do you want a bunch of new standards for your bike? Frame mounting, hub width and configuration, chain or belt, chain tensioners, and lots and lots more are needed. It seems unlikely that every major bike manufacturer or gearbox developer would agree upon a single set of fixed ''standards'' that everybody would use. Because all bikes would then eventually be the same. And nobody wants that. We want choice.
A gearbox has a lot of potential for certain applications to make a great bike, but it's not a perfect solution today. And as I mentioned before, gearboxes have been around a long time, nearly twice as long as derailleur systems. I know a lot of people think ''What’s the point?'' of continuing to improve a derailleur system. The point is because we are still improving them. Ten years ago, everybody (practically) was riding 3x9 drivetrains on performance bikes. Today, you probably aren't. You could, though. You could also go back to an elastomer fork and rim brakes but you won't. An external drivetrain is light, efficient, simple to work on, and available at a wide variety of price points. Not to mention readily available at bike shops around the world. Our 1x11 drivetrains span a huge range of prices, making it affordable to any mountain biker.
But you know what, plenty of people ride single speeds. Adam Craig is a 5-time single-speed World Champ. His bike was incredibly light, durable, simple, and probably affordable. Have you asked him what he thinks about gearboxes? He would smash us all with only a single gear. Why do you even need gears? Probably because we aren’t Adam Craig.
The decision about gearboxes on future mountain bikes is completely up to bike riders. Everybody reading this has a choice, a VOTE today. You can go out and buy a gearbox bike right this minute. And if thousands and thousands of people do, it will steer the direction of the industry. We all get a vote on this stuff. It's called dollars / euros / pounds or money. Every dollar you spend on a product casts a vote for that product. I don't know how many performance mountain bikes have gearboxes today, but I do know how many external drivetrain bikes are sold today. Today, people are voting for an external gear drivetrain. It doesn't matter how many derailleurs or gears it has.
Is SRAM working on a gearbox? Well, in a sense we started working on them 100 years ago. SRAM isn't afraid of trying new things, taking risks, and taking our own trail to the future. I guess we will see what's going to happen when it's happening.
When everybody (or nearly everybody) buys it or chooses it, it will become ''the norm.'' Gearbox bikes are available today; they are a commercially available option, but clearly not the norm. Therefore, I can only conclude that The People have decided that the product does not suit their needs. People vote with their dollars and their choices. Believe it or not, The Industry will pretty much cater to the common vote. Democracy can be tough, though. Sometimes you lose to others, and that means your opinion isn't the direction chosen. That might be hard to accept. What's keeping the gearbox from becoming the norm? The People haven't chosen it.
Whew, and breathe. It turns out that it isn't just you guys that are passionate about gearboxes, as the cycling industry that's behind the products we ride has some pretty strong opinions. Better yet, they're not exactly soft-pedaling with their opinions when asked what's keeping the gearbox from becoming more of a mainstream item. That said, it's the same weight, efficiency, compatibility, and cost concerns that have been voiced in the past, and those same reasons will continue to be used when the question is brought up again and again in the future. In the meantime, companies like Zerode, Pinion, Effigear and others are pushing forward despite those four cogs of contention.
We're about six thousand words on (kudos if you've read this far, by the way) from where we started and, hopefully, it's a bit clearer as to why we all still have a derailleur hanging off the back of our bikes. The question after everyone has made their case above: should that derailleur stay there, or does a gearbox deserve to take over its duties? - Mike Levy
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
If you keep changing stuff how on Earth will you ever reach volumes to cover that R&D and tooling?
I'm sure these big companies can absorb a bit of a hit when it comes to costs to produce and supply gearboxes at reasonable prices? They will make their money in time. These little guys just can't afford that risk in cash flow.
So we should be content with a new sprocket, half a HA degree and rear axles with 2mm extra every now and then?
Because incompatible standards have been a hurdle for manufacturers?
Aren't they already changing the molds every year anyway?
So much wtf in a single sentence.
If you have purchased a gearbox and have seen the light, excellent. But if you're one of those "there is an industry conspiracy against gearboxes" and you haven't yet purchased a gearbox product, then I revoke your right to b*tch about it. You must put your money where your mouth is before you demand that businesses risk their--and their employees'--livelihood to make your curiosity commercially available at your budget level.
However it doesn't do what made Zerode, in my opinion great;
Gear box = opportunity to run high pivot, which has to be one of the most exciting suspension layouts, bye bye braking bumps, roots, rocks or any square edged impact.....
If Shimano made a light weight Alfine with 3/4 gears, and the G2.5 got a little longer, it would demolish all....
It's difficult to imagine 13 speed cassettes with anything bigger than 50 teeth
But then again: it was only a few millimeters here and half a degree there. The usual. Nothing really different from the year to year changes.
Sachs (which is now their drive trains so it counts)
Rockshox
Avid
M (your best guess here)
I am biased in that I ride trails that are steep, rocky and rooty all the time. I ride a Nomad, which is great, works really well, but compare that to my G27.5 (i know more travel etc etc) it's like re-writing the rule book on how a bike can handle that kind f terrain. If only the internal geared hub wasn't from a touring bike, it's not woeful, it's just not all it can be.
I'd like to see the Taniwha flourish enough for Rob to be able to continue to evolve the DH bike, and hopefully bring out an alpine long travel enduro with a high pivot.
I am pretty sure SRAM and Shimano secretely work on gearboxes for MTB at least a little so that if it becomes the way to go, they can follow the trend and retain their leader role. They just don't dedicate themselves 100% to it since gearboxes still have obvious problems.
he does not seem to be talking through an heavy marketing filter in this interview that is. basically hes saying they know how to make gearboxes and they'll make em if they figure enough people will buy them. which, yeah, sounds reasonable.
i think what most people here want to hear is "we're working on X thats a gearbox that solves it all we just need a frame manufacturer to follow up and.. yeah 2018 we're good to go!". That's not exactly how things work. Because you like a gearbox as a concept doesn't make it instantly a perfect mechanical design.
There needs to be a few brave souls (with big wallets) to start the revolution that we will all benefit from in the future.
www.pinkbike.com/u/DoubleCrownAddict/blog/derailleur-failure-and-why-its-time-to-evolve-beyond-them.html
It's not a problem that can be chipped away at with engineering- it's a fundamental problem that's going to require either new materials or someone a lot smarter than the rest of us with a completely new idea. Which after over a hundred years of development seems pretty unlikely.
We've already convinced the average rider that they need 6" travel and downhill tire tread patterns to have fun mountain biking, and now bikes cost 6k and weigh 30 lbs. Add a gearbox and some plus tires and then we'll all just give up and get an E-bike. That's how they do it.
No one wanted 27.5 and boost, and it was bought. We do want this. And within 2 years of launch, who would be caught dead on the trails without one?
Just build it already!
I have also owned many hub gear bikes and agree they are not for MTBing. I do think gearboxes are going in the right direction. 5year guarantee
I recently rode a fat bike with a Rohloff gearbox hub, it is brilliant, has a really cool shift action, the push pull grip shift is quite easy to adjust too, and once you put some kms on it, just as efficent as chain\cog garbage technology.
Bring on house brand suspension (giant\trek) and put a gearbox in an aluminum frame (german mail order brands, i'm looking at you)
Ikubica I think a lot of us know the truth of the industry and aren't brainwashed by their claims of fancy tiny changes making huge differences in mountain bikes, so buy a new 7k carbon bike barley better then your 5yr old aluminum bike, do it, new hub spacing! press fit bottom bracket, slightly lighter frame by 70g...
www.pinkbike.com/u/DoubleCrownAddict/blog/derailleur-failure-and-why-its-time-to-evolve-beyond-them.html
Review here, Sir
Looking at Santa Cruz's comments about longevity: they have never used a pressfit BB. It was always optional and never even was claimed to improve the riding experience; it was just a manufacturing thing (maybe some vague claims about frame stiffness benefits). You can also get adapters for it, mitigating longevity issues. Santa Cruz did go to Boost, but this only was a minor rear triangle change, and the entire industry was jumping on that en-masse. At least Boost is a standard, even if it is a new one. But there are adapters that can be used with it too.
Why hasn't anyone done comparison testing on the new generation of gearboxes from effigear and pinion so that we can see EXACTLY how much more drag they produce? This is the primary issue for most riders, and we don't even know exactly what we're talking about. Come on pinkbike. Get some testing done for us.
The point I'm making, is that both dirt & wear are going to degrade efficiency at a much slower rate on a gearbox with a belt, than on a traditional drivetrain. & Belts can absolutely be used in a full suspension format, both motorcycles & Niccolai have proven that.
I suspect that Pinion doesn't have the in house staff and/or cash to do a proper study like this. A lot of smaller bike companies are remarkably small, I wouldn't be surprised if Pinion is under 10 employees.
Sram/Shimano don't have any reason to publish numbers, since they are the current industry standard, and the burden is typically on the newcomer to prove an improvement and convince consumers it is superior. A gearbox probably shifts much better when covered in crud, but I doubt the effect on power loss is any different, as the moving pieces exposed to crud are mostly the same: chain, chainring, cog, and 2-cog idler.
As for the moving pieces, you're convieniently ignoring the point I made about belts being completely usable in full suspension designs, no idler needed, & besides that, when you've got a single driveline you can install guards in bad weather (or all the time, if they're light enough.) Heck, one of the ideas I kicked around after seeing Nicolai's belt driven FS prototype was running the belt THROUGH the chainstay(beltstay?) for protection, & to be able to cover the always spinning drivecog in a fixed rear design like they showed.
@groghunter a belt will work for a hard tail or single pivot applications just fine but that really limits the ability for the suspension designs that the consumers seem to prefer these days to be used. However I think this is something that could be remedied by a robust tension arm designed for use with belts. (maybe one already exists that I haven't seen yet)
I'm with Waki, that's the least valuable benefit of gearboxes.
@mixmastamikal Those suspension designs are still designed around the chainlines, pedal feedback, & pedal bob needs of a derailleur drivetrain, you can't make assumptions of how a gearbox suspension design will work based on them. The gearbox>rear hub portion of the that nicolai was almost 1:1, for instance.
Maybe for the bike you're talking about the pivots are concentric, but hiding the belt in the chainstay wouldn't work for lots of designs.
If you're a professional company, making claims about your, & your competitors products, you need to have a repeatable lab process. That requires facilities, personnel, & accurate measurement equipment.
@WaterBear Yes, if you're going to do a belt design like I was thinking about, a concentric pivot is not only necessary, but desirable, as in, the more the structure of the pivot can be integrated into the drive cog output, the easier it is to hide that cog inside the stay. It isn't a fully fleshed out design, either, I see several problems with it, for instance, making it a two piece design might have issues with strength/weight ratio, & making it one piece might make it hard to make the pivot as robust as it needs to be.
More of a speculative idea I came up with & thought about. no idea if it's feasible. OTOH, integrating thin carbon fiber guards should be easily doable.
www.rohloff.de/en/technology/speedhub/efficiency-measurement/index.html
I've been riding Rohloff for 10 years now and Pinion for 2, there's no big difference in both systems concerning "drag" The whole drag thing is realy extremely over rated, it;s virtually non existing. Also concerning drive train drag is maybe 3% of your overal "drag", Rolling resistance, air resistance etc give way more "drag".
Do you really think an so many avid cyclist in Holland and Germany are running a Rohloff/Pinion Belt combination if it was that ineffecient? A lot of people are just afraid to try and are having their opinion ready just from hearsay.
I can say from experience that in muddy condtions a belt/internal gear combination has less drag and is a way more durable and reliable than any chain set-up.
No one seems to argue a derailleur system that is nothing more than an open geabox with grease exposed to the elements that operates 99% of the time with an incorrect chain line?
"One of the biggest and most obvious is the fact that gears in a gearbox have significantly more drag than the chain system we are accustomed to."
How does this compare to the drag of derailleurs when they were a new technology?
"Nothing they are making now is directly compatible with a gearbox, so this means re-developing, potentially from the ground up, and expensive carbon molds."
Is this not what manufacturers have had to do for Boost?
Richard Cunningham -
"If bike makers switched to gearboxes today, the two weakest links of the present system would still remain on most mountain bikes. So, the final drive of most production gearbox bikes would most likely be a roller chain and, because of the variable chain lengths created by the most-wanted suspension designs, there is going to be a chain tensioner."
Effigear solves this, see bikes by Nicolai and Cavalerie.
I also think that the benefits of the gearbox actually outweigh the drag. It's not really all that measurable by the human engine, although quantifiable by math. The improvement in suspension, weight distribution, and further refinement in suspension design (as has similarly been achieved with the removal of the front mech) will all outweigh the "drag".
You are on the right train of thought Mr Money.
EDIT: ....like the two guys above me just pointed out.
This whole article reeks of establishment industry confirmation bias hiding behind a thin veil of fair reporting on the pros and cons of gearbox tech.
The derailleur drivetrain was invented in 1928 and works perfectly fine for road bikes where precision shifting is not impaired by mud sand and more mud. A lot of design and engineering has gone into improving the rear derailleur, but this system is still exposed to the elements and mud. The derailleur has become the mechanical Achilles heel when long distances and trail conditions turn bad.
Point is, either way, you still have a chain to get dirty.
I won't repeat all the pros and cons (many!) but I LOVE it. I want to show people how good it is already, and how good it could be if we all put our money where our mouths are and invested in one. SRAM guy on point, if we started buying them, the industry would follow our demand and invest in development.
Industrial inertia isn't an argument. WE DIDN'T WANT BOOST OR 650B! Neither of which made any improvement to anything except corporate profits. With refinement, gearbox performance & reliability will go up while cost comes down. Has the average cost of any level of bike, car or electronic device gone up as the performance & quality has gone up over the years?
I couldn't fly a fvck what everyone else uses. Most people seem to always have to have something "new", which is why these morons are consistently fed crap with different seasonings on it. As long as I can buy the better thing, that works right all of the time & lasts & lasts & lasts the rest of you buffoons can keep on buying & buying & buying as much junk as you want. Maybe you never replace a derailleur because you buy a new bike every year. Meh.
Slinging the "drawbacks" to uninformed consumers is akin to the Big 3 NA automakers trying to quell any interest in EVs. The MTB industry has long needed its analogue to Tesla. Maybe it'll be Pinion, maybe Effigear, maybe someone else but it won't be $hitmano & it won't be $CAM & you all know why.
Joe is exaggerating the efficiency loss. It's online, and more research was done and it's actually quite close when you consider factors like chain line. Don't kid yourselves in pretending it's a 10% difference, it's not.
@Beltrider I think that is the true case. Without Nicolai, none of this would have happened imo.
I know that there isn't a frame that fits both, so let's say a major company buys the idea and come up with two frames as similar as possible, except that one fits a gear box and the other a regular drivetrain. There you go. Do several runs on both bikes on different terrain, on different situations (climbing, downhill, all mountain, etc), plot the average results, listen to the riders' feedback and it's done.
But the question is (I actually don't know, really): Has anyone done this?
Lets make our rear hubs into some high/low gear range units that are cable actuated. We know it's possible, lets start refining it! Bring back that front shifter and let it do it's work on the rear hub. Still no messy 2x/3x setups, while retaining a similar range. It's a central mass, so the weight added won't be much of a penalty being that it will all be actuated within the hub.
Honestly tell me why this wouldn't work?
Don't get me wrong, singlespeeds are cool, but were not in this for a fashion statement *hides my matching Fox kit and helmets*
Single speed maintenance = wipe down and relube the chain, check for chain growth, hit the gnar, repeat
Gearbox maintenance = wipe down and relube chain (or not even that if using a cogged belt), check for chain growth,hit the gnar, repeat until 1 year of riding when you change the oil.
Derailleur = bitch and moan about it going out of whack half way through a ride, not going into top gear, dropping off the cassette and behind it and against the spokes, swear intolerably as you bend spokes getting it back out, ride a wobbly wheel home, hit a stick on the way and break the derailleur hanger off the frame, rig up a single speed using ten or so less links and locking out the suspension as best as possible, go online or your fave LBS and buy new hanger, new chain, replacement spokes....bitch about the cost of it all and wonder why the bike industry still has these stupid gear shifting mechs and not gearboxes...
I guess the only diff to single speed and gearbox is that you still have to maintain a gear shifter, but that is reasonably easy.
and you have a tensioner on a gearbox but it's tucked away and probably need a little wipe. This is why I like @Peregrinebikes bikes. He's gotten rid of the need for a tensioner.
Come On, Until Sram and Shimano, etc don't find a way to make Gearboxes less reliable, that will not be a good business model for them... Its good for them that we be able to keep brooking our derailleurs/chains and whatnot...They are not in the business of reliability and long duration components!! Long Live Capitalism!!
The Shitmano Alfine hub isn't even close to a Rohloff hub, Rohloff has less drag, less weight and lasts 100x longer. Alfine hubs are not intended for ofroad use.
For the rest:
- I don't believe in the theory that these big Sses stick to a conventional drivetrain to sell more wear parts. If they're after that, they could just as well make other parts less durable as well.
- If a gearbox would make a bike with a carbon frame too expensive, just put it on an aluminium frame.
- I believe that if component manufacturers can agree (somewhat) on a standard (or several different ones actually) then gearbox manufacturers can, too. Especially if this would otherwise keep frame manufacturers from speccing one in the first place.
- The idea that suspension design would be compromised with a gearbox is backwards. Current suspension design is a compromise in order to work with conventional geared drivetrains. A gearbox would require some redesign, but definitely make things easier. No need for an idler to cope with "chain growth" if you arrange it properly.
- Yes, for a simple frame builder it is much easier to design and build around a conventional drivetrain than around a Pinion. Same goes of course for IS brake mounts instead of PM. But a geared hub in the frame (Alfine like Zerode or Rohloff like Nicolai used to do) could be doable as well.
That said, it is nice to have the views of these different people/companies on a single page. The biggest elephant that somehow left the room is the Hayes group. They're big, could be an OEM supplier similar to SRAM offering whatever goes on a complete bike (Hayes/Answer/Manitou). They just for some reason don't turn the PeteSpeed gearbox they bought from B1 (a gearbox similar to what Honda has been running in their DH bike) into reality. Would be nice to have this elephant back in the room to complete this article. Same goes for Suntour who may not have handlebars etc, but they do have a gearbox and suspension.
Also, FYI, current suspension designs are the way they are because a bicycle is extremely power limited compared to, say, a moto. When you need a fixed-length, no chain growth rear end in order to accommodate your gear box, you anti-squat invariably goes to shit, and pedalling efficiency goes out the window. There is a reason no one is proposing gear boxes for XC bikes.
The only reason that a gearbox isn't on an Olympians XC bike right now is weight. It has nothing to do with suspension ramifications. Bring out a carbon box, or magnesium; both options would be lighter than an alloy box. Reduce the number of gears in the box...maybe 9 instead of 12 (25% weight saving). Make the sprockets from a lighter material; yes it reduces lifespan, but you don't exactly have a long lifespan with a cassette... Plenty of ways to get weight out of a gearbox before even looking at lighter cranks, lighter frames, lighter wheels etc...
Yes component manufacturers would agree to a standard and no they won't stick with it forever. If they feel a standard is holding them back, they move on. There was the ISCG standard for chain guide mounts. Which wasn't compatible with all frames and didn't work well with external bottom brackets that came up after 2003. So Dave Weagle got component manufacturers round the table and decided upon ISCG05. Same with disc brake standards. Initially it was all over the place. Then they agreed upon IS2000 which got most common. Exceptions were the Boxxer mount and PM. But IS2000 was stable and easy to produce. But as more complete bikes got spec'd with disc brakes, the faster (to install) yet less stable PM standard became more popular in the OEM market which introduced a shift. After all the bike manufacturer instead of the end user became the customer. But standards help with the adoption of new technologies so it is definitely in the gearbox manufacturers interest to agree upon a standard. Hahaha.
If the front and rear ring have the same diameter and the rear axle pivots around that front ring (so you have no chain or belt growth) there is no interaction between suspension and drivetrain. That is, if the cranks remain level, the suspension can move without rotating the rear wheel. If you do want interaction, you can use different diameters front and rear. If you want the suspension to push down when pedaling, use a bigger ring in the rear than in the front. Is that what they call anti-squat? I tried looking that term up but all explanations start with so much bullshit that is hard to keep reading beyond that. They basically say that when you accelerate your weight moves back. Which is nonsense. Weight moves back when the mass moves back. If you stay central on the bike when accelerating, weight won't shift. What does happen of course is that the rear wheel experience a larger upwards force from the terrain and the front a smaller, compared to the situation with a constant velocity. Yes of course that would also happen if the weight would shift to the rear, but it is a very different mechanism. They're trying to explain a dynamic phenomenon using statics, it is confusing and it doesn't work. But if it is what I think it is (the wheel digging down under pedaling forces), it can simply be done using a big ring in the rear and a small ring in the front like they do on an MX bike.
As for suspension design, um, there is a lot wrong with your statement. First off: anti-squat (for bicycle suspension design) is defined as the use of chain tension to counteract the "squat" of a suspended frame under pedaling forces. It can be graphically represented as a curve of percent of anti-squat vs suspension travel. The reason we say "squat" your center of mass will always move rearward when attempting to accelerate your bike, and the rearward shift of the center of mass behind the bottom bracket produces a squat effect. That is not nonsense, it is the Law of Conservation of Momentum: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The necessity of anti-squat is the key difference between suspension design for motos and bicycles. On a moto, with a twist throttle and a fixed-position engine, it is possible for the rider to maintain the center of mass over the main suspension pivot. On a bike where they have to pedal, that is not possible. Hence we need to design suspension systems to minimize the energy lost to compressing the suspension during pedalling. This is one of several factors that limit the efficiency of a gearbox bike.
While it may seem confusing, the methods for analyzing these dynamic phenomena are a well known and explored field of engineering, and an anti-squat curve combined with shock spring and damping information will provide an accurate description of how a bike pedals. Moto-style designs exist. They suck to pedal. Adding a gear box will not change that one iota.
Ok, so this is an unashamedly glowing review of the Zerode Taniwha. I'd try to balance it out with some positive criticism but I just don't have any. This review is just my opinion. I don't claim to be any kind of expert or EWS pro, I'm just a guy who likes riding his bike.
I've got 4 solid days on it now and I can truthfully say it's the best thing I've ridden. I felt comfortable on it first run and was able to build speed quickly. The bike is fast, feels planted but plenty playful. It's super plush but I've still not felt it bottom out. I'm cornering faster, carrying speed better and charging steeper and rougher terrain with more confidence. The gear shifting is easy to adapt to and once you've got the hang of it there are some advantages.... The ability to shift through multiple gears at once with no shifting delay is awesome, yes, you do need to get off the power to shift but that's easy enough to plan and becomes natural quickly. I've found that pinch climbs where I have been caught out before are easier manage with the gearbox, you just pause for a split second, dump as many gears as you want and then get back on full power without the delay of the chain climbing the cluster. It's also nice to be able to select the exact gear you want whilst stationary. This will be particularly useful at the beginning of race stages or after pushing up a section as you can select your starting gear without having to pedal to shift.
I think the most noticeable trait however is how well it stays on its line, especially through rough terrain, both in a straight line and whilst cornering. I'm no expert but I guess it has a lot to do with the reduced unsprung weight of the rear wheel. You can just point it where you want to go and it goes there. I've smashed all my PR's and done it with a huge grin on my face.
My bike was never built as a light weight xc racer, with the components I've selected it's really only one step back from a full DH rig and that's what I wanted. Whilst I won't be smashing any climbing KOMs, it still climbs acceptably well for a big bike and the 600% gear range certainly helps with that. It pedals well with very limited bob. I was only selecting climb mode on my shock for the long fire road climbs, the rest of the time running wide open in a plush DH setting even for flat pedally sections.
I've done some decent days in the saddle already, 5+ hours of climbing and descending in the Redwoods (Rotorua), so big days or enduro races will be no problem even with the big (heavyish) coil shock.
I'm also the guy who always smashes his derailleur at the furthest point from home so the simplicity, and hopefully reliability, of the drive train really appeals to me.
I'm riding lines I'd never even noticed before, hitting DH jumps and drops I was too frightened to before, attacking trails I was just 'surviving' before and hitting everything else with an excited new confidence.
What were you riding prior?
Thank you PB for this article as it openly showed why this sport is where it is.
Sorry for negative rep, it was a mistake.
Now, all of that is in the past, and no doubt that Sram has addressed these failings for their shifters. Personally, I'd like to try a set again.
Pinion makes their own shifter, or as far as I know they do. It isn't a GripShift. But please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe that there is a way to make an indexed click shifter work with a Pinion, but it involves a bit of dicking around TBH as you have to push/pull the cables. The answer will be a shift unit on the gearbox itself that utilises a spring to change gears, rather than the push/pull unit currently employed. This would then allow a basic ratcheting and release shifter (ie, current shifters) to be used.
But, yeah, don't know why there is so much hate for throttle shifting these days. AFAIK they work pretty sweet now.
''However, there will be plenty to see in the coming years for gearboxes, with our Pinion technology being just at its beginning''
I will be giving it another 3-4 years, and seeing where the gearbox technology is at that point. Also with the whole, ''bike companies don't want to change carbon molds which is extremely expensive'' argument. 3-4 years ago nobody had any 650b bikes out, until they realized they could make a ton of cash by making everyone else swap over. They were more than happy to make new carbon bikes then.
Pinkbike, please refrain from cheapening yourselves like this in the future.
As if the man needs more smoke blown up him.
I've been here so long that I'm plagued by the memories of the days in which I was unable to watch videos and could go to the comments without seeing a barrage of rubbish posted by Waki.
You're like having a wart on the end of my penis.
So if SRAM or Shimano start producing gearboxes at retail, it has to be completely in addition to the derailleur product line, & they will receive zero press from riders taking those gearboxes to wins at competition. It would mean a huge expense, with a much smaller return on investment than derailleur development, for reasons completely outside their control.
Let's face it the market for gearboxes is very small compared to the demand for CHEAP systems around the world. Oh and don't forget the gram counting / leg shaving roadies....no way in the world they would accept it.
In conclusion I want one :-)
Personally, I don't think derailleurs are so bad. Inspiring weight? Meh, we're all used to it. Maintenance? I might have to adjust mine a couple times a season and replace a hanger every other year or so. Think you won't have maintenance issues with a gear box? Think again.
(Irony approved of, incidentally).
They had a lot of exposure last June, at a major MTB show (VeloVert Festival) cause the conditions were super muddy and their bikes were rolling flawlessly.
Increase. Now cost... Enve factory grew rather big and it is hard to find more unnecessary gigantic expenditure than wanting these rims for anything else than road and xc racing.
So we are left with 2lbs of overall increase in weight. Get on the gym baby
Cover it all in a plastic guard and bobs your uncle. Problem solved!
Disclaimer: This comment is to be taken with a generous helping of salt.
This does not disregard the fact that the internals are essentially a very simple design and easily worked on. Even upgraded with different gear ratios should someone wish to do that (though I wouldn't see the need personally - far easier to adjust the final drive ratio).
"What is put together by one man, can be pulled apart and be put back together again by another"
When Santa Cruz first came to market they were uber expensive as they were far more a garage company than they are now. Which is exactly where Scooby, and other Pinion/gearbox user/bike manufacturers are at currently. Just too small to make the economies stack up.
Should Giant release just one bike model with a gearbox, and the whole game would change.
"Over 6,500 of the 10,000 replies stated that it had either been more than two years since they broke a derailleur, they couldn't even remember the last time they broke one, or that they've never even had an issue".
When a bike costs as much as a car, i don't expect any component to fail on it within 2 years when said expensive bike is being used in the way it was designed for.
If your using an XC bike to Downhill on thats another story.
Some may say, but thats the owners fault for hitting the derailliuer against a rock. And i would reply isn't the mountain bike as a whole designed to go up and down mountains which contain rocks e.g. its a product design fault and can be bettered by utilising a gearbox.
Bicycle companies seem to pass the buck stating its not our fault with our bike (e.g frame) its the fault of the component. They sell the product and should take ownership of what they are selling as a whole. A vehicle manufacturer wouldn't pass the buck if an integral part of the vehicle, like a gearbox, fails within its natural life span. They'd fix or replace it or be expected to make a better product. Rock or no rock. A mountain bike is designed to encounter rocks. And a multi-thousand dollar bicycle should definitely be able to cope with them.
In short.
Bike manufacturers know they can make a better bike but choose not to.
Component manufacturers know the derailleur, at its heart, is a faulty design but choose not to fix the fault by making a better drivetrain.
If you want a 50lb (3.57 stone) bike, sure.
[I'm talking in Shimano terms here (XTR etc). Sure SRAM has a race group as well, but I've lost what that is after they went above X0. ]
And another thing: They may be super reliable but if a gearbox quits I would be at the mercy of the supplier. Send it in for service, wait for them to send it back, hope they won't try to screw me out of my warranty. And since the thing is firmly installed in your frame there's a chance you might have to send in the entire bike. What a pita!
With a broken derailleur I have a small chance of fixing a defect myself and a 100% chance I can at least replace it with a cheap Deore while I wait for the warranty.
There are no moving parts on your bike that are designed to last the life of your bike. Even if you babied your bike, every bearing, bushing, pivot, seal, is going to fail.
Humans are weak so they need light bikes. That is the primary driver of your durability concerns and the reason components are the way they are. You say you don't care how fast you go, but to design a bike to the same durability standards as say a car or airplane, it's going to weigh at least 50 lbs if you want it at an affordable pricepoint (like homeboy said above).
Failed components are the norm and acceptable in the bike industry. If a failed component would most likely kill someone, how different would bike designs be today?
I think the issue with the reliability of a conventional drivetrain is that you can leave home with your gear in perfect condition and a simple stick or rock could destroy it. You can't prepare for that. Internal gearing doesn't just suddenly blow apart. If it is good when you leave, it will most likely survive your ride. If you start noticing play or weird noises over time, you can fix that at home and you'll be fine. It is more predictable. It may not matter in a DH race, but it does matter for someone who just regularly rides the bike for fun. I have no experience with those frame mounted units, but gear hubs aren't too hard to service. And if it is really messed up, you can just replace the entire cartridge (at least with Shimano you can). So that'd be the equivalent of replacing a rear mech.
TL;DR: Yeah safe life design would shift an unacceptable amount of weight from your wallet to the bike but a slight compromise in that direction would be nice.
at the same time, I've blown up 2 Alfine 8-Speed hubs in my commuter bike from shifting under load.
Perhaps an execution on a DH bike with superior suspension design is the answer
Alfine hubs suck, Rohloff/Pinion are in a completely different league.
Their engineers have been watching Zerode.
Could it be?!?!
There are probably people I could ask, but it's more fun to speculate and hope.
In an age when mountain bike manufacturers and their hardware suppliers(i.e. SRAM and Shimano et al) are coming out with new and 'improved' wheel/hub sizes, bike geometry, shock sizing etc in an effort to get people buying new bikes every other week, one would think they'd see the gearbox as a[nother] tool to do this.
And we all know the quickest way to improve on a design is to get it out in the real world, being made by multiple companies, and in as much people's hands as possible.
War forced countries to build the quickest, best handling, and most lethal planes in the smallest amount of time-competition- That's why the airplane evolved from a paper kite with a chainsaw(prolly not exactly) motor, to jets that do Mach 3 and beyond, VTOL and vectored thrust, all in less than a hundred years.
Everybody was using it, thus smart people were coming out with new designs for a multitude of companies in the shortest time possible.
Alas, the real hurdle is its lack of maintenance, i.e. a loss of income for drivetrain manufacturers. No need to replace front chain rings bi-monthly, no derailleurs to get smashed in crashes thus needing replacement, and no new-and-improved cassettes to get everyone to pay $300+ for every 6 months.
It's therefore my opinion that it's gonna take a small company such as Zerode, to come up with an affordable home-run design that will entice a large(er) number of customers to step up for.
IMO the players(SRAM/Shimano) won't move forward unless/until they see that not doing so is gonna hit 'em in the wallet.
And yet you ignore "to the that guy".
Pedantic AND careless. Well done.
When I get home from a ride, I give the bike a quick squirt down - no tedious washing or chain cleaning.
I think the reason people are not complaining more is that they have just resigned themselves to a shitty life riding a regular drivetrain - It's like a person living in North Korea - complaining every day, aside from getting you shot, would just get you down, so you bite your lip and say it's not that bad.
Luckily most of you are not surrounded by a barbed wire fence, so what are you waiting for?
I ride a bike every day to work I'm fortunate enough to be able to ride through single track in my local state park to get there. Nothing epic, no big drops or serious tech just a nice little trail to take to work. However, I ride through shit on many days. And I do mean shit, goose shit, derailleur deep mud, snow, ice, whatever. I have an xtr drivetrain that I have to clean constantly every day. I would love an aggressive HT with a pinion gearbox and a gates belt. These things have their place. With so much being invested by the bike industry to make these wanna be motorcycles (E-bikes) for people that are too out of shape to pedal why the hell can't they invest in making the gearbox more mainstream?
Portus 3500€
18 bikes £3000
Nicolai 3150€
Endorfin £2250
Viral $5000
Mi Tech 2300€
You would have thought someone like On One could make one for £1500.
ghost roket x al 3500€ www.ghost-bikes.com/en/bikes/hardtail/bike/roket-x-al
cheetah for pleasure arround 3000€ www.cheetah.de/mountainbike/alpencross-for-pleasure.html
I Kickstarted my Carbon hardtail frame for £2500
Am doing them now for £2700 - 3000 -
Longtravel or Rigid
29er or 27.5+
I am working on a 4130 frame
They just failed, probably in their hunt to offer as cheap as possible..... very dissapointing. Throw in a bit more and go for a dedicated brand.
"We're in contact with a number of well-known OEMs, and it has become exciting to see who is a technology leader and will be using our revolutionary drive technology as the first gearbox bike in their catalog."
Who and when would be interesting...
That's rich.
Yes we like component interfaces to be standardised to make it easer to swap/replace.
No we don't like existing standards to be replaced by new standards for no apparent/viable reason.
come ride here. these rocks love them. at least shimanos are much lower profile than sram.
At Shimano, this team is working on front derailleurs, better wires for electric shifting and a slightly improved version of the original Gravity Dropper seat post. Their next project will be to see if it's possible to use carbon fiber to make crank arms.
I did find this line interesting though:
"The overall bike industry is pretty soft, especially in the downhill segment, so asking brands to invest a lot of money in new designs to only sell a relatively small number of frames is not going to get the thumbs up from George in accounting, so there is a very real gamble that could literally bury a company"
guess that's why Saint and Zee haven't been updated since Obama was running for reelection.
The big companies have the tech but their product lines are set years in advance to maximise profit from the moulds and tech they have refined.
When they feel it's time for the gearbox to prosper then it will until then the little companies can keep plugging away all they like. Helping the R&D of the big companies. They will just buy the latest gearbox rip it apart and use what they feel benefits them to better produce their gearbox product.
Companies like Tsubaki and Renold have been very successful with their roller chains for industrial applications.
1. Norbs was robbed
2. Everything looks like a Session
3. Gearboxes are the future
And
4. wait for it..... CHRIS HILTON from SRAM is a Condescending A-Hole!!
No other person in this article wrote/talked like him.
Listen A-Hole, we want you and Shimano to refine the current state of the tech so that we CAN "VOTE" for wth with our $$. Don't say we haven't voted for it. This article is proof that there is a real desire for it. Now go make it so! You can do it.
And next time you are asked to contribute, don't be a d!ck about it!!
I may be a bit of an old guy here, but I don't want my bike to require batteries and I don't want crazy mechanical stuff on my bike that is difficult or impossible to maintain, suspension is bad enough. I will never have battery powered shifters or an eBike and I will never have a gearbox because when these things fail 30k in to the bush, you are walking. There are simple workarounds and solutions for nearly all failures with a traditional drivetrain that will at least get you rolling again.
I'll take cheap, efficient and easy maintenance over a potentially very expensive failure any day. And, to be fair, when I buy a bike, I expect a bike, not a car. Current drivetrains, namely cassettes and front gears may be throw-away, but they still last usually 2+ years of riding, depending on how much you ride. You'd have to replace a lot to cover the extra cost of a gearbox.
It reminds me of these people who buy hybrid cars thinking they'll save money on gas. If the car lasts 20 years that may be the case, but in general, people will never recoup the extra cost of the car in gas alone.
The short of it is, I could get a bike with a traditional XT drivetrain and buy several full replacement XT drivetrains for the cost of getting a similarly equipped bike with a gearbox. This is not just wear-n-tear issue and largely why they'll remain a niche/gimmick item for the foreseeable future. The XT, well maintained, will out-perform the gearbox in almost every way, it's also more configurable, cheap and easy to repair, and cheap and easy to maintain. You could maintain a traditional drivetrain for the life a bike until the technology is obsolete (i.e. 9-spd, which I still have on 3 bikes) and still spend far less than what you'd spend on a gearbox.
Will gearboxes ever become mainstream? Possibly, when the technology improves enough that it actually improves the bike and is affordable enough the justify it. Or, maybe it's just one of those things that doesn't bring enough to the table to justify its existence. Time will tell. It's not that long ago that bike suspension was just a springy mess and not much more than a gimmick itself.
When I was younger and made less money I was content with less expensive bikes and components and still had a great time riding. Now that I can afford spending more money on the hobby I may actually work on a Pinion-equipped bike for the 2019 or 2020 Tour Divide (which is another unnecessary waste of money if you look at any hobby in purely practical terms).
My experience with internally geared hubs (I have a Rohloff on my bikepacking bike) has been mostly positive and despite the few drawbacks (weight and drag) I have really enjoyed it. I bet the Pinion improves on this, just by looking at the design that has fewer gears in train for every gear ratio.
Game=Changed
if u ask me, the way to go would be to move the rear hub to the right... for even spoke tension (like cannondale and specialized did and maybe a few others)
and wider chains would be nice for some more durability ... how long does an eagle cassette last vs a 7spd dura ace?
I'm sorry? "Chunky"?
Did you even LOOK at the Pinion box?
www.pinkbike.com/photo/13963971
its kinda small but still: not as efficient and a box that is bolted to where a bb should be
i start to love the "old" bike stuff over the new and even newer plastic-marketing-get-every-potential-cusomer-into-riding bs.
Nope, they mostly buy what is pre-installed by OEMs.
"XX1, which instantly revolutionized the way we spin circles and keep chains on" serious question: does you guys count XX1 really as revolutionary?
"Evenly spaced gear selections with no overlaps - not perfect, but pretty close." I think no overlaps are impossible on external transmissions, just because the way our legs work; otherwise the gear spacing would be just too steep for us. Or am I missing something?
"we don't want any rides missed based on decisions we made" that actually made me want to buy a Santa Cruz! Great philosophy!
"gearboxes have been around a long time, nearly twice as long as derailleur systems" I thought it was the other way around!
I'm not sure I agree about The People deciding the way the SRAM guy thinks, I'm more inclined to believe that BECAUSE the industry pushes some changes (29", 1x/2x, tapered headtubes, boost...) is that The People "vote" with their moneys to use them.
The Pinion checks many many boxes (do what you will with that pun) the twist-barrel shifter is where it falls short for myself and likely many others. I've heard Effie-Gear has an adapter to run Shimano or SRAM shifters but those boxes seem even more rare than a Pinion.
Big Bike Manu is hard set on turning into electric mini bike companies so gearboxes are trying to gain market share at the absolute worst time.
Also, bring on more e-bike coverage!
Here's my pro for gearboxes: Reducing unsprung weight is H.U.G.E. Everyone try yourself. Remove cassette, chain and derailleur from your bike and go on one chainless ride downhill. Tell me, you don't feel any difference (I won't believe you).
Apart from scoring a great riding exercise by going chainless, you will notice to have to adjust your rebound, because your rear wheel is gonna be much more active and springy. And this from removing something like 6-700 gr. unsprung weight, which is very little when compared to 80kg rider plus 14kg bike. Crazy effect really.
So, here is your justification to push on for gearboxes. All other problems around gearboxes can be solved just like the problems surrounding classic drivetrains for ages.
Investment probs? for sure. Just as with suspension, this wouldn't change the market overnight. But think slow shift and let each company build one high-end model into their wide range of drivetrain bikes. We'll see from there.
Inability to shift under power
Twin-cables and the requirement of a grip shifter
Increased drive-train drag
Total weight
Was that recognising different disciplines within the PB community? I can see differences between XC and AM, for example.
Quit your test and save some more for a Rohloff, Alfine isn't suited for ofroad use, you'll be dissapointed
1. Cost and complexity
2. Suspension geometry.
Its widely appreciated that a rearward axle path is better for negotiating bumps. Why else would you have any concern for head angle at the front? - same thing.
On the exterior of a gearbox system is fundamentally a single speed. The axle path must remain on an arc around the axis of the cranks otherwise the chain/belt must grow.
This limits what you can do with rear suspension design.
The rear mech, may have its pitfalls - but it has the combined function of chain tensioner and allows and controls significant lengthening of the chain during suspension travel.
I think the gearbox is wonderful - but it isn't practical for mass market full suss designs. There are so many suspension concepts, each manufacturer has their own - which gives each brand it's unique selling point. A gearbox drivetrains is likely to start to commonize suspension designs between bikes, and thus the individuality is lost. A simple example: will not work with Orange single pivot - so what would orange do? Move the single pivot to the bb? This has already been done etc!
1) Diesel engine vs regular unlead gas engine vs Li-ion full/partial electric systems
2) VHS vs Beta
3) Shimano vs SRAM vs Campagnolo
4) PC vs Apple iMac
- you don't need 6000 words to say that it's all based on short and long term costs, availability of parts to the masses, compatibility standards. Weight, of all things is the last thing on anyone's mind. So, if a gearboxed bike weighs 35 lbs and it costs as much as any other department store bike, I'm sure it'll become the norm. However, if the gearbox is aimed at the pros only, the argument is really moot. No industry is going to support that. It's just a niche or boutique market. This world is driven by money, nothing else. We're all driven to make our own choice, but in the end, we're limited with the choices by what we can afford.
If you want a gearboxes for the masses, make it adaptable to the 10+ billion bikes that are available in this world and make it affordable to do the conversion. The only gearbox systems that can do right now is the electric mid-drive systems and they're fast and some are affordable. They're heavy due to the huge batteries you put onto your bike, but who the hell cares when you can go 50 or 60km/hr on a flat road and at least 20km/hr up a fairly steep mountain trail?
I hate the line in the article! yes i would love a gearbox and i want it to become the future but to go buy one right now ya sram lemme just pull $10,000 out of this air to buy a Taniwha.
if someone came out with a bike that had the same geometry and spec as my transition patrol with a gear box for roughly the same price then ya id save up sell my bike and go buy one!
the problem is'nt us sram, not everyone can show our opinion with dollars especially if the product isnt on the bike they want!
WOW!!!! those last comments in the article pissed me off!
www.pinkbike.com/news/cavalerie-anakin-first-ride-2016.html
www.syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=3&pk=1924
Interesting...
How many months until a better box comes along?
Your new $1000 box will be obsolete in less than a year.
Maybe a realistic next step will be to make derailures rebuildable. Paul Word did it years ago.
So what's the reason everyone gives as to why they adopted 1X again?
Note that whilst the cassette is heavier, they have clawed a significant amount back via lighter cranks, so these figures a "system" figures...
Eagle XX1
Crank 32T but no BB - 475g
Rear mech - 267g
Shifter - 106g
Chain - 251g
Cassette - 364g
TOTAL - 1463g
Sram XX1 (1x11)
Crank 32T but no BB - 568g
Rear mech - 241g
Shifter - 106g
Chain - 255g
Cassette - 267g
TOTAL - 1437g
Shimano XTR 1x11
Crank 32T but no BB - 583g
Rear mech - 221g
Shifter - 102g
Chain - 257g
Cassette - 329g
TOTAL - 1492g
XX1 11 speed - 10/12/14/16/18/21/24/28/32/36/42
Gear inches per srocket with 32T chainring on 27.5 tyres
86.4/72/61.7/54/48/41.1/36/30.9/27/24/20.6
Eagle XX1 is the same all the way apart for the extra 50T sprocket, so has the addition of 17.3 wheel inches
However with Eagle 1, as the range is greater you can alter the front ring without sacrificing climbing inches to gain back descending inches, eg with a 36T chainring you have the following wheel inches:
97.2 / 81 / 69.4 / 60.8 / 54 / 46.3 / 40.5 / 34.7 / 30.4 / 27 / 23.1 / 19.4
So 10.8" more distance the wheel will travel per crank in top gear, and 1.9" more distance when in the lowest gear. You'll be faster on the downs / flat but have to work a bit more on the uphill with a 36T.
Over in the 2x camp...
Shimano XT 11-40 cassette running a 26/36 crank setup the main numbers (top and lowest gear) are:
26T - 63.8" on 11T sprocket
26T - 17.6" on 40T sprocket
36T - 88.4" on 11T sprocket
36T - 24.3" on 40T sprocket
FYI, Eagle XX1 has 500% total range, XX1 11 speed has 420% and XT 11-40 on 2x has 505%
So, I have to put it in terms I understand. The Eagle X01 is 10-50t. With a front 32t gear that gives me gear ratios of 1:0.31 on the low end and 1:1.56 on the climbing end.
On my 2x10 end, with a 42t OneUp I'm getting 38:11 (1:0.29) on the low, so a little faster, and 26:42 (1:1.62) on the high, somewhat higher climbing efficiency. For me, who can spin in to oblivion, but tires quickly if I have to mash, that's what matters most.
If I were to go with a 30t front on the Eagle, that gives me gear ratios of 1:0.33 on the low end and 1:1.66 on the climbing end, giving me slightly better climbing performance without sacrificing too much on the low end. Since I'm rarely down that far anyway, that could work. Again, thanks for the info.
Wheel inches are the ultimate measure of the gear ratio though as this is how far you move per crank revolution. Won't throw torque requirements in though! That'll just confuse everything, and who the hell knows what power is in their legs on any given day anyways???
For now I'm just waiting for Elon Musk to jump into biking and have the nerve to do the right thing no one else will.
This is all that matters, pedalling efficiency. Anything designed for a current Mtb has to consider this first, and any other benefits second. You can't make enough improvement elsewhere to overcome this original limiting factor. Gearboxes produce way too much drag and offer no significant advantage (other than bragging rights for the early adopters, which is always enough for "that guy").
At this point, I want to suggest that if it's on a motorbike somewhere already, you don't need it (gearbox, motors etc). Go buy a motorbike. If you want a trail bike that looks like a motorbike - seriously, what are you, 12??? Grow up.
Dummy. Garbage argument.
None of the gear manufacturers are gonna stand up and say "external gears wear out faster, hence you'll be buying replacement parts sooner" now are they?
It's not an effing conspiracy, it's what they teach in design at every university........
wouldn't that mean that i would be spinning more and going slower .thus loosing momentum and having to use even more energy to recover the speed lost. winching up smoith stuff would be okay but on technical climbs smooth momentum is key for me.
i actually started clearing more climbs when i went to 1x simply becauses i was forced to go faster and carry more momentum. instead of just sit a spin . to carry that same speed i will have to work harder. no way round it.
iv nothing against gear boxes im just dont see the reason outside DH
I see gearboxes being applicable to DH and Enduro (winch up). Trail and XC tend to involve more tech climbing as such need efficiency.
420% / 500% / 600%...don't get too carried away with those numbers. It's just descriptive of a range of gears, not how big your largest sprocket is or how easy/hard it will be to climb something. (formula is largest number of teeth divided by smallest number x 100, eg Eagle = 50 / 10 = 5 * 100 = 500%)
On top of that you have your front chainring and wheel/tyre circumference which ultimately allows you to work out "wheel inches", or how far your bike will move with one full crank.
Running 600% just means you can run a larger chain ring as you have a slightly better low end and slightly better upper end available in the gear range. A larger range actually gives you more options to find what works best for you and your legs.
bloody jinxed me .
broke my rear mech today, My fault entirely mind, didnt install the wheel and chain properly, lazy me not paying attention
still doesnt put me of them as there so cheap and took me 5 mins to replace . well slx is anyway
most of your shift problem's with your zee will be from the shifter. zee shifters are like slx in that they use cheap plastic bushes with losts of slopy draggy play in them. Always go xt or higher with shimano shifters as they have proper ball bearings in the shifters then so nice and crisp from now till the end of time. That and the jockeys on zee mechs arnt really designed for alot of pedaling and wear out really fast as there supposed to be a cheap dh mech. replace them with cnc jockeys. that cures the side side play and puts that chain where is supposed to be when shifting. kist be aware that fitting cnc jockeys will tighten the chain even further as they are slighty larger than std plastic ones.
a slx mech is the same as a zee only with a longer cage that works better on 1x10 with less mods im my experience.
I am using a zee mech + xt shifter. I love the double tap with the xt shifter. Plus I am using it on a hardtail so chain growth isnt really an issue with the 42t cog. I run a 36 + zee mech on my full sus with xt and thats fine as well.
I guess it does really depend on chain growth of the frame.
i got some uberbike ceramic bearing jobbys on sale. been faultless silky smooth. was worried the bearings wouldn't last long like old chain guide rollers but been great.
Why is this?
To make it work, I imagine that the motor would need to be higher up the downtube and either mesh directly via sprockets, or have a short chain linkage, which all starts to blur the whole motorbike vs electric assist mountainbike grey area.
Whilst the bike industry is trying hard to say that eBikes are nothing but a gentle helping hand, I don't think they will risk incorporating the two technologies.
Honda / KTM / Kawasaki et al have already merged the two....
A few changes to the effigear box and you could fit a motor on the crank axle.
Check out the motors in the amz racing cars, pushing 50hp out of less than 3.5kg, about the size of your fist...
As ever, its a great article, and a great debate.
I thought their slogan was Innovate or die?
Maybe I have that wrong and it's actually Wait and Follow?
So do not expect it to be better in all ways
And they dont like being called gearbox anymore. I beileve the corrected term is LGBT
MONEY.
They don't want to lose THEIRS.
And the drag isn't as much as the two S's would have you believe.
The weight, too, is coming down. Zerodes are just a tick over 14kg, running Fox 36 and no flash carbon bars or cranks etc. It wouldn't be overly hard to hit 13.5kg. What does your current fully bike with 160mm suspension weigh, betsie? I'm riding two bikes over 14.5kg, and one at 13.7kg, so one at 14kg with a gearbox is no effective real change to what I am riding, but I get that mass put into a better place on a bike. It's like in F1 - you have a regulated minimum weight, but you make your car lighter than that and then use ballast to bring it up to regulation but in doing so you have the freedom to put the weight where you need it for handling. A better handling MTB is one where the weight is low and centered, exactly where a gearbox is. Not to mention the benefits of reduced unsprung mass on the rear wheel, or the fact that you can make that wheel stronger by using wider flanged hubs without the need to dish the wheel, possibly enabling you to go down to a lower spoke count, further reducing the bikes mass.
And you don't need to change the gears in the gearbox for ages. You'd likely go through five years of cassettes before needing to spruce the gearset in a gearbox. If you feel under geared for a certain riding area, you can still change out the ratio of the final drive (chain rings each end, or just one end, your pick).
You might want to get down to the local optometrist as gearboxes are the future. Giant/Trek etc will start speccing them well before the mid '20s.
Who sets the R&D budget... (don't even start me at the moment)
I race too and do ok at that for my age so have no idea of what works on a bike.
Please educate me.