Pinkbike Poll: Is The Gearbox Fantasy Dead?
Will the gearbox ever eclipse the traditional derailleur drivetrain?
The future always looks so promising. Flying cars, the Jetsons cartoon, and Marty McFly's hoverboard in Back to the Future II have done well to convince us that we'll be living a better, easier life in the near future. Gearbox bikes could also be added to that list of non-starters, with a general lack of acceptance by consumers that has been fuelled by an equal lack of commitment from both bike and component manufacturers. Sure, there have been some boutique brands making a go of it - Lahar (RIP), Pinion, Zerode with their Alfine equipped DH bikes, and the Germans at Nicolai have been pushing things for many years as well - but the average rider has never been able to pop into their local shop to choose from a number of new gearbox bikes. And, at the risk of sounding negative, we are willing to bet they they will be able to purchase that hoverboard before any major manufacturer steps up to offer a proper gearbox bike.
Why it won't happen:
The potential was certainly there. With no derailleur or flimsy hanger to smash to bits their insane reliability should make a Unimog look fragile, and a single chain ring and cog setup means that chain management is a cinch. Factor in the centralized, if a bit hefty, weight, along with less cables to deal with, and they should have unquestionably upstaged the rickety old derailleur systems that we've been using for decades. A funny thing happend over the last five years, though; derailleur drivetrains got really, really good. We're talking about the system as a whole, from lighter weight chain guides that don't rub or bend, smartly designed derailleur hangers that won't contort from a bit of contact, and even easy to service freehubs that seem to last for seasons of abuse before needing some love. Evolution is a wonderful thing but it also weeds out the weak, and gearboxes are the slowest antelope in the herd.
Derailleurs are reliable... finally. There was a time, only a few short years ago, when it wasn't uncommon to go through four or five derailleurs in a big season of riding, especially if most of your time was spent on a downhill bike. Catch your low hanging derailleur on a rock or root and you could expect it to self destruct, spraying parts over the trail and leaving you stranded. Cages cracked and twisted, putting the chain into the spokes and starting a chain reaction that would only end one way. Pivot pins would work themselves loose, especially on low-end derailleurs, and slip out, allowing the parallelogram to quickly take a different shape. No matter what company you prefer, both SRAM and Shimano have improved in leaps and bounds over the last few years, and it is fair to say that even inexpensive offerings from both companies can stand up to some serious abuse these days. We put loads of winter miles on SRAM's 10 speed X5 model, and at a very reasonable $64.00 USD, it impressed us immensely. In fact, it is still running fine to this day. And the same can be said of Shimano's SLX derailleur, especially now that it comes equipped with their Shadow Plus clutch system.
Chains don't fall off like they used to. Anyone who rode a downhill bike regularly eight to ten years ago will likely recall many frustrating moments spent trying to un-jam their chain from between any number of parts on their bike. Our weak bottom bracket spindles would bend, putting everything out of alignment, spindly crank spider tabs would do the same, and a lot of chain guides on the market at the time varied between dangerous and just plain shitty. Fast forward to today and it is pretty rare to experience any of those issues. Chain guides have also evolved into mega-light and rub-free designs, with offerings from MRP, e*13, Gamut, and others, that will keep your chain put unless you did your best to muck up the install. Clutch derailleurs have also been key, with many riders finding that they can actually get away with either using a minimalist guide or even no guide at all on their single ring setup, and SRAM's clever alternating tooth profiles - every second tooth uses a thicker and heavily stepped shape - on their X-Sync chain rings hold onto the chain like a fat kid holding onto his last Snickers bar.
Less weight, more efficiency. It has been proven that a chain is by far the most efficient way to transfer power, so why sacrifice that by driving it through a bunch of internal cogs that erase that advantage? True, this may not be a big concern for most freeriders and even some downhillers out there, but to the average mountain biker who is riding both up and down the hill - that is, the very large majority of people who purchase bikes - this is a big deal. You may not be racing cross-country, but you also likely don't want to be working your ass off with the thought of some of your puny horsepower going to waste. And then there is the weight factor. You don't care, you say? You'll gladly take the hit for the perceived advantages of a gearbox? That's great, but the amount of downhillers who would actually pony up and purchase a gearbox bike is miniscule compared to the amount of riders who would scoff at the idea, which leads us to what is likely the knockout punch for gearboxes.
Companies sell what's winning. The fact of the matter is that many consumers want to purchase what they see being used by professional riders, be it racers on the World Cup circuit or freeriders in the latest movie. When was the last time you saw a gearbox bike take a major win in a race? To be fair, Cam Cole was on a carbon fiber, gearbox equipped Lahar when he won the Junior World Championships in Roturua, New Zealand in 2006, but that certainly isn't the norm. What about the old Honda team of Minnaar, Fairclough, and Matti Lehikoinen? Honda certainly made an impact, but they also exited the sport when they realized that their investment wasn't going to pay off. Would Aaron Gwin be as successful on a gearbox bike? There is a pretty good chance that he would be, but he is also looking for the lightest and most efficient tool for the job, and that happens to be a traditional (although highly specialized) drivetrain. The same goes for the rest of the field, and we'd be willing to bet that a gearbox bike won't win again anytime soon.
Why they might still make sense:
So, have gearbox advocates been wearing blinders then? Given all of the anti-gearbox chatter above, why bother with them? Because they do offer some advantages. Despite all the talk about derailleurs becoming much more reliable over the last few years, gearboxes will always have the upper hand on this point - the rock that just cleaved off your derailleur would have passed unnoticed if you didn't have a derailleur to start with. And then there is the weight. But they are heavier, often much heavier, than a traditional derailleur drivetrain, you say? That is true, but their weight is nearly all in one centralized unit that can be placed in the best possible location on the bike in order to hide it. More importantly, the heft of a cassette, freehub, and derailleur are moved off of the rear axle, allowing the suspension to work morecompetently. Cost is often viewed as the biggest downside to a gearbox bike, with bespoke retailing for quite a bit more than a md-level derailleur setup. Shimano's Alfine internally geared hub is a great counterpoint to that, though, with the cost effective hub being used as a gearbox in Zerode's DH bike, among a few others. Are those strong enough points to propel the gearbox into the world of the everyday rider? We think that the answer is plain to see.
The future always looks so promising. Flying cars, the Jetsons cartoon, and Marty McFly's hoverboard in Back to the Future II have done well to convince us that we'll be living a better, easier life in the near future. Gearbox bikes could also be added to that list of non-starters, with a general lack of acceptance by consumers that has been fuelled by an equal lack of commitment from both bike and component manufacturers. Sure, there have been some boutique brands making a go of it - Lahar (RIP), Pinion, Zerode with their Alfine equipped DH bikes, and the Germans at Nicolai have been pushing things for many years as well - but the average rider has never been able to pop into their local shop to choose from a number of new gearbox bikes. And, at the risk of sounding negative, we are willing to bet they they will be able to purchase that hoverboard before any major manufacturer steps up to offer a proper gearbox bike.
 |
 The Cavelerie Falcon DH bike ticks all the boxes: nine speeds via its Effigear transmission, proper angles, 200mm of travel, and a claimed weight of under 40lb. So why aren't we all riding bikes like this? Blame the skyrocketing evolution of the derailleur drivetrain. |
Why it won't happen:
The potential was certainly there. With no derailleur or flimsy hanger to smash to bits their insane reliability should make a Unimog look fragile, and a single chain ring and cog setup means that chain management is a cinch. Factor in the centralized, if a bit hefty, weight, along with less cables to deal with, and they should have unquestionably upstaged the rickety old derailleur systems that we've been using for decades. A funny thing happend over the last five years, though; derailleur drivetrains got really, really good. We're talking about the system as a whole, from lighter weight chain guides that don't rub or bend, smartly designed derailleur hangers that won't contort from a bit of contact, and even easy to service freehubs that seem to last for seasons of abuse before needing some love. Evolution is a wonderful thing but it also weeds out the weak, and gearboxes are the slowest antelope in the herd.
 |
| Shimano's Zee derailleur has proven to be very reliable, and its clutch system goes a long way to minimizing dropped chains. |
Derailleurs are reliable... finally. There was a time, only a few short years ago, when it wasn't uncommon to go through four or five derailleurs in a big season of riding, especially if most of your time was spent on a downhill bike. Catch your low hanging derailleur on a rock or root and you could expect it to self destruct, spraying parts over the trail and leaving you stranded. Cages cracked and twisted, putting the chain into the spokes and starting a chain reaction that would only end one way. Pivot pins would work themselves loose, especially on low-end derailleurs, and slip out, allowing the parallelogram to quickly take a different shape. No matter what company you prefer, both SRAM and Shimano have improved in leaps and bounds over the last few years, and it is fair to say that even inexpensive offerings from both companies can stand up to some serious abuse these days. We put loads of winter miles on SRAM's 10 speed X5 model, and at a very reasonable $64.00 USD, it impressed us immensely. In fact, it is still running fine to this day. And the same can be said of Shimano's SLX derailleur, especially now that it comes equipped with their Shadow Plus clutch system.
 | While high-end aftermarket parts can be expensive, competition has lowered the cost of OEM components to insanely low levels. Adding the cost of a relatively expensive gearbox at the factory level would translate into a large increase in the retail cost of the bike, a rise that would either not be accepted by the consumer, or that would have to compensated for by a down-spec on the rest of the bike's build. Deciding to purchase a mass produced gearbox bike would essentially be similar to buying an overpriced Toyota Prius, more of a declaration of higher awareness and an idealization of the future that still gets you back and forth to work on time. - Mike Levy |
Chains don't fall off like they used to. Anyone who rode a downhill bike regularly eight to ten years ago will likely recall many frustrating moments spent trying to un-jam their chain from between any number of parts on their bike. Our weak bottom bracket spindles would bend, putting everything out of alignment, spindly crank spider tabs would do the same, and a lot of chain guides on the market at the time varied between dangerous and just plain shitty. Fast forward to today and it is pretty rare to experience any of those issues. Chain guides have also evolved into mega-light and rub-free designs, with offerings from MRP, e*13, Gamut, and others, that will keep your chain put unless you did your best to muck up the install. Clutch derailleurs have also been key, with many riders finding that they can actually get away with either using a minimalist guide or even no guide at all on their single ring setup, and SRAM's clever alternating tooth profiles - every second tooth uses a thicker and heavily stepped shape - on their X-Sync chain rings hold onto the chain like a fat kid holding onto his last Snickers bar.
 |
| It is expensive, but SRAM's single ring, eleven speed XX1 drivetrain may be the nail in the gearbox coffin. This will be especially true if SRAM moves the technology down the line to more affordable price points, something we expect them to do in the future. |
Less weight, more efficiency. It has been proven that a chain is by far the most efficient way to transfer power, so why sacrifice that by driving it through a bunch of internal cogs that erase that advantage? True, this may not be a big concern for most freeriders and even some downhillers out there, but to the average mountain biker who is riding both up and down the hill - that is, the very large majority of people who purchase bikes - this is a big deal. You may not be racing cross-country, but you also likely don't want to be working your ass off with the thought of some of your puny horsepower going to waste. And then there is the weight factor. You don't care, you say? You'll gladly take the hit for the perceived advantages of a gearbox? That's great, but the amount of downhillers who would actually pony up and purchase a gearbox bike is miniscule compared to the amount of riders who would scoff at the idea, which leads us to what is likely the knockout punch for gearboxes.
Companies sell what's winning. The fact of the matter is that many consumers want to purchase what they see being used by professional riders, be it racers on the World Cup circuit or freeriders in the latest movie. When was the last time you saw a gearbox bike take a major win in a race? To be fair, Cam Cole was on a carbon fiber, gearbox equipped Lahar when he won the Junior World Championships in Roturua, New Zealand in 2006, but that certainly isn't the norm. What about the old Honda team of Minnaar, Fairclough, and Matti Lehikoinen? Honda certainly made an impact, but they also exited the sport when they realized that their investment wasn't going to pay off. Would Aaron Gwin be as successful on a gearbox bike? There is a pretty good chance that he would be, but he is also looking for the lightest and most efficient tool for the job, and that happens to be a traditional (although highly specialized) drivetrain. The same goes for the rest of the field, and we'd be willing to bet that a gearbox bike won't win again anytime soon.
So, have gearbox advocates been wearing blinders then? Given all of the anti-gearbox chatter above, why bother with them? Because they do offer some advantages. Despite all the talk about derailleurs becoming much more reliable over the last few years, gearboxes will always have the upper hand on this point - the rock that just cleaved off your derailleur would have passed unnoticed if you didn't have a derailleur to start with. And then there is the weight. But they are heavier, often much heavier, than a traditional derailleur drivetrain, you say? That is true, but their weight is nearly all in one centralized unit that can be placed in the best possible location on the bike in order to hide it. More importantly, the heft of a cassette, freehub, and derailleur are moved off of the rear axle, allowing the suspension to work more
Author Info:
Member since Oct 18, 2005
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
The guys at Pinion need to sit a bit more with the design of the bike hosting the gearbox so it looks as sexy as the best bikes of the big companies, and things will look differently. Those German designs do have an established character, but adressing a very niche tastes. Not acceptable by the masses, and if you want to make a breakthrough, if you want to be listened to, you have to adress the masses visualy, not just structure engineers loving robustness
Its pretty similar to this article.
The big point Levy misses with this article is that derailleurs ARE NOT a completely reliable design, despite all the giimmicks they keep adding to derailleurs.
Mike Levy writes: "Derailleurs are reliable....finally" Oh really??? Then why did I recently see a broken XX1 11 speed derailleur smashed by rocks? Because derailleurs are not reliable, if anything I would argue the newer long cage derailleurs are even less reliable because there is more chance of hitting rocks with the longer exposed cage. Also, with the longer derailleurs and more tightly spaced gears, even the slightest bend in the hanger will cause shifting issues.
Hi pivot just plain works for going fast and stable. The Lahar (and Zerode) are able to single and multiple gear change when the pedals are not moving. So important when racing! This is a game changer just in itself and should not be overlooked.
I invite Pinkbike to come to NZ, ride our Lahar and Zerode gearbox bikes and compare them to the best derallier bikes made today.
I want to see a full side by side same track, same rider, times taken runs on gearbox DH bikes versus latest production race weapons.
Invite is there - even for you Waki.
and please explain how high pivots naturally help neutralize bobbing that so many other designs do with valving and or leverage curves, and or anti squat(compromising other things IMO).
Whatever will come, this progress is inevitably slowing down. So the Next Big thing is electronics, sure, but in mechanical world, the only castle to conquer, the only significant, new selling point is the gearbox. It will always be heavier and less effective, but once developed, it will be a feasible alternative to standard derailleur systems.
For me, the current system is the same as the 4 stroke engine. It's not better than the alternatives, but the industry is so heavily invested in it that it will take a miracle for them to change tack. Legislation might eventually force it in the automotive industry, but it never will in the bicycle industry.
I'm all for gearbox, but I fear it will never happen. Not for the reasons stated in the article though.
I feel like the only thing holding them back is the derailleur still being such a money maker. If you think about it just ten years ago derraileurs were shit, every couple years they made small changes and improved them. Apply that same logic to gearboxes. Companies create something new, everybody talks it down and says they suck or that it just won't work, then the companies get everything in order and everybody is kissing their ass! I say get over the f*cking derailleurs and lets get innovative. If only several companies would come together and work on it for biking as a whole but then again it comes back to making money so it will probably just start slow as hell and in 10 years everybody will have them.
So what I am saying is, although centralizing mass is important, and unsprung weight is too... how much does a mech weigh? and a cassette? High end, not a lot. If the gear box weighs more, and I really do think it will, is it worth the extra weight and friction loss just to take 300-400 grams off the rear wheel? I mean, these new DH bikes are absolute screamer's it's not like you finsish a DH on a carbon Demo and think to yourself "gee I wish I didnt have this lead weight on my rear axle"...
accountants running the 2 big transmission companies starting with "S" know exactly how much money they make selling derailleur based transmission systems which suffer increasing "wear and tear" you more you ride or push your bike
no desire to move to ultra-durable gearbox transmissions and affect the profit and loss spreadsheets
actually? thinking deeper about it, as a professional workshop manager (bike shop) I could be out of a job if gear boxes became widespread, as 70% of our repair work is removing toasted derailleur transmission systems and fitting new parts
There is another benefit they haven't mentioned with the gear box: clearance. You could run tiny cogs with different chains, allowing for lower bb's. That could really make a DH rig better.
SRAM has made a gearbox that retrofits to any modern frame. I like the hammerschmidt gear box. Honestly two more gears there and it would be everything I need. A hardest for really cranking it down the hill, a medium for high speed flats, an easier for those climbs, and a granny for the really hard climbs. All they need to do is work out how it could get 2 more in there and allow customization in their ratios.
Even without 4 gear changes on the front I might get a hammerschmit and go single on the back. Who needs all those changes really?
Gearboxes have two advantages over derailleurs, mass centralisation and reliability (let's face it, you can still rip any derailleur off pretty easily). Mass centralisation is a little dubious as an advantage especially if it comes at the cost of substantially increased weight overall. However, what you also lose with a constant chainline is the varying anti-squat that comes with different gears. You need more anti-squat when climbing than when riding on flat, and more anti-squat is produced in lower gear combinations, which just happens to work out quite well. That is a distinct advantage to derailleur-based systems, and unlike weight or reliability, there is no fix for that one when using a gearbox. For that reason, they'll always be relegated to the DH world (if anything), where there isn't enough money to really develop that kind of thing to the cost and weight criteria it would need to meet in order to be properly competitive with derailleurs... so I think Levy is on the money.
http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf
And yeah, maybe the added friction could be a negative point for racing but it could be compensated for by better performing suspension designs.
I once crossed a guy riding a zerode and asked him how he liked it. His answer was "The fact that it's hassle free and the quality of the ride makes you totally forget that it's a little heavier than conventional setups."
The way the article is written (lack comments about friction, suspension efficiency, maintenance, durability) makes me believe that mike never rode one, which makes this article entirely useless.
Don't you thing that adding a taco-style or dangler style anti-D will add no friction to your how-friction-free derailleur transmission????
Having the shifting mechanism bending a chain under load from side to side and forcing that chain to ram into another gear is not logical, no matter what amazing advancements are made. Have a look at a chain in granny gear on the back from the back of the bike. Look at it's angle to the front chain ring, do you really feel this is the most logical way to lock out suspension from working as efficiently? A bent chain as a lockout mechanism, wearing out itself and the sprockets every time you hit a bump or bounce.
I've not given it much thought, but off the top of my head, Have an electric sensor to activate firmer damping only when pedaling if you want to replicate the lower gear anti squat you talk of. You could have the increased damping not effect bump performance any more than chain torque does. Or have a mechanical system like the Kona magic link. I'm sure people wouldn't care for it. I really don't think it's a big enough issue to worry about myself. For XC racers, keep a mech if you really think it's better for their suspension design. For the rest of us, let us have our way more durable, less money sucking, reliable, slightly less efficient(yet to really be proven until the big companies got on board), simpler to use and live with gearbox bikes that we can shift anytime anywhere without half the worry of failure. Ram that sucker into a bike with a slightly higher pivot point so it bobs less.
Let me frame it in a way I like: Lose 2% efficiency to pedalling with a gear box (a trade we make for longer travel anyway), gain better axle paths, get better weight centralization, lower bottom brackets, the option of using clean long lasting belts (look at some of the current bike belt designs they are pretty nifty) and get bikes that don't wear out their parts as quickly.
In the end many of the things we say in defense of the 26er against the 29er are also defenses of the gear box: it is more flickable, who cares if it doesn't pedal as fast. I'm out to have fun, not obsess about my gear (you will never have to think about it cuz it never breaks!). I contend that if you like 26ers you ought to be pushing for a gear box standard.
Conversely, a 29er with a gear box would be more flickable too and you could drop the bb even more.
The only people using derailluers should be xc riders and roadies. The rest of us belong on gear box.
The car comparison doesn't make sense as you have so many other things to worry about while riding a bike, as opposed to driving a manual car, where in most scenarios shifting is the only thing that makes driving a little bit less boring.
Having said that, I think CVT on a pushbike would be awesome. You'd never have to worry about being in the right gear because you always would be. I don't enjoy changing gear on a mountain bike half as much as I do on my motorbike. In fact, on a downhill run on my local course I only use three or four gears and pretty much never change gear unless I'm in a race. It would free up brain I/O time to concentrate on other important parts of the ride. I don't think it would drastically increase your times like it would in a car or on a motorbike. In fact, I think it would have the opposite effect.
Plus there would be the added benefits of getting rid of another cable and give you more bar space and a cleaner look at both ends of the bike, which I'm all for. Basically all the benefits of singlespeed and gears!
NuVinci have had their CVT design on the market for some seasons, Ellsworth (Ca, USA) did their "Ride" chopper bike with the NuVinci and it just felt...weird
having gears changing automatically is very very odd, perhaps good for a novice? but an experienced rider will want to shift UP/DOWN when they feel the need, rather than a CVT system making that decision for them?
But I kind of imagined the future and decided to better deal with it...
I'm not saying a manufacturer should conform to a standard if they think that they can provide a superior product by not doing so, but saying "standards are an obstacle" is a pretty blanket statement. You only have to look at 15mm axles; every company is going to try and convince you that they've found the perfect balance between weight and strength with their fantabulous non-standard measurement, when all they've done is piss a lot of people off.
The largest contribution to steering precision is the crown. All variables are important, but the stability at the crown was shown in the late 80s and early 90s in moto to be the biggest area of gain. The next is the brace (brake arch) then the axle. The axle is more important on inverted designs as there is no brake arch.
agreed with your information about crown
a heavier crown provides a huge support to the fork stanchions and overall fork rigidity, but at the expense of weight
if you look at Fox's single crown forks, they are very light, and use a heavily engineered crown to reduce much of this weight
I have had discussions with technical people at Fox (I work as a workshop manager in bike shops) and they said customers want a very light fork, and Fox have engineered a minimal crown which has a critical tolerance for safety when manufactured
they said their machine press fits the stanchions in the crown, using a light coat of special grease. a good number of fitments fail this process as the stanchion / crown tolerance is critical, and during fitting the crown expands (swells), if beyond the tolerance then the fitment is rejected under QC
Over time, with washing and bad weather, this grease will leach from the stanchion / crown interface, which results in a strange creaking / clicking when pedalling or braking hard. Its not a safety issue, but simply an annoyance that can only be solved by replacing the entire CSU at cost (not cheap, unless within the 1 year warranty when its FOC)
They could eliminate this problem by manufacturing a heavier crown to allow their in-country techs to use a hydraulic press to remove, grease and re-install the stanchions (like old press-fitted Marzocchi forks) but this would add substantial weight to the fork
A complete carbon upper assembly with impregnated slider material would be incredible, but imagine the PB comments: OMG, $2500.00 for plastic!!!!! Its gunna snap!!!!
RideOn mate
Bigger companies does not like gearboxes, because are maintenance free, that means, "no buying again and again if some derraileur got broken or the cogs got worn"
Gearboxes can be much better, and big reason that make them not so popular is the blackout made by some press, sponsored by big economic interested holdings
Who cares about flying cars or a hoverboard? We drew a penis on another planet. i.imgur.com/eqOEDzw.jpg
It is the same thing with the electronic operated bike parts, they are the future. Many and more people said that a machine would never be a match for a man, and now we have more and more machines taking over on factories and on automated systems! The ABS system was ridicularized by most pilots, they said it would never beat a man into braking... Or the automatic cars! These also were taken as an useless waste of money!
Some people are just way too close headed about innovations. They hang to their dérailleurs like a fat kid holds to his last Snickers bars, these will be the ones who will regret what they said about the "dead" gear boxes...
Don't want innovation? Get your 1920 bike and go out to ride with it! People like Mike Levy (Who I used to respect a lot because of his eloquent articles, and great reviews) should take more care when writing about something being introduced on the market, they are the ones who form a lot of people opinions. Pinkbike is a major bike media as I see it, and such a ridiculous article should be banned, not posted on their home page...
Hope people don't take this gearbox is dead bullshit seriously.
Caio Kallas
Jaydawg69. define efficient? Maybe statically with a clean mech on a bench, no. But in the real world of neglected drive trains, weak drivetrains failing, not being able to shift into a more efficient gear more easily, not having to think about when you can shift, then I think you may well find, in a lot of cases, like DH, a gearbox may well be more efficient.
"...Gearboxes are really inefficient, which is why all race motorbikes and energy eficient cars use a derailleur system." Yup
The other big disappointment is that Main Pivot is not concentric to the gearbox, that drags to a chaingrowth, and makes the bike to depend on a "derrailer style" Chain tensioner.
If Zerode would have a dedicated gearbox like Pinion, and concentric pivot, would get all my respect.
Don't see gearbox bikes becoming common place any time soon, but i think one day(5/10/15 years from now, who knows) you will see atleast one at your local trails every time you go for a ride.
The Alfine sits between your calves, hardly high, and the weight stabilizes the bike really well. Gives it it's own center of gravity when unweighted.
What they should be looking at is the scope for evolution of the gearbox, and ask: "if the gearbox evolved and improved by the same margin as the deralieur has..... would it be a better system? I suspect the answer would be yes.
Or should we just stop trying to innovate?
I'd welcome anyone's feedback if I'm wrong, but I feel this quote is systemic of an article aimed more to cause division, and less concerned with a fair representation of the issue. With members of the press being this closed minded, let alone the punters, how can the mountain bike industry progress? Pinkbike, I expected better. I come here to read interesting and entertaining pieces about my sport, not opinionated daily-mail-esque tat based on dubious at best facts.
Having said that, the loss of efficiency in bad conditions is due mostly to the chain and not the mech. With a gearbox system you still have an exposed chain, though at least the chainline is straight.
It's worth remembering that gearboxes are not that uncommon in the commuting world. I can't help but laugh when I see someone proudly boast about their 'maintenance free' hub gear, and then see their chain is a orange, flecking rusting hulk that sounds like a battle tank rolling by. Followed by the hub gear breaking and needing to get sent off at great expense to the one shop in the country that will actually service them.
So yeah, many of the advantages of a gearbox for say cross country use are nullified by the conventional chain drive needed, as they are on commuting bikes. Unless of course you run a fully enclosed chain case - this does, I'm told, genuinely run for years or even decades without anything needing serviced. Me, I'd go for a chaincase that can fit around a short cage mech....not sure why this hasn't been done yet.
ihpva.org/hparchive.htm
The size of the sprockets used has quite a big impact on effeicency - small is bad, something which Shimano & SRAM probably don't want to advertise with current compact drivetrains. Yes I sit on the gearbox side of the fence and fully realise there are compromises.
For me the frustration and cost of replacing mechs and hangers with crazy inflated prices is enough reason alone to look for something different. Whats the efficiency of walking home cos your mech hanger broke again?
I just know my bike isn't light...2.5 Maxxis, Fox 36 160, Transition 32 rims, KS dropper. Weight is the least of my concern.
You can't just focus on one factor and believe there are no trade offs, I undrstand national pride, but zoom out for a moment, take some perspective, look how broad the picture is - fkng hell... You guys are starting turning people against Zerode
Have you spoken to "people", NO, well don't express what they're thinking like the OP did. Stick to facts.
The importance of light weight is an over exaggerated marketing misconception. Sure it makes the bike feel more fun. Make you faster? Well, how much? Same with any possible extra friction from a gearbox. You really think it'll make more negative difference if it does exist than the pros of a gearbox always having perfect shifting, and being able to get in the right gear any time quickly? I think not.
Mountain bikes should be simple and reliable. Not some fragile piece of crap letting us down all the time. It's about riding not shopping remember.
"Zerode iss ze best bike in ze vorld?"
I don't doubt it's great, I appreciate that they did something different and that they are pioneering the use of alternative drivetrain. I just mean that plenty of people here behave as if there were no trade offs. It's a proper DH bike optimized for use of "gearbox", but it isn't suddenly superior to other designs. It might be in drive train department, but there are many other "departments". Just stop rocking the boat so much with it.
a gearbox device is much more reliable than a derailleur drivetrain, it need a little more maintenance of course, but finally you never replace it and you don't have to pay one hundred $ or € every year.
who has never damned his derailleur because of a broken ? who has never seen his derailleur projected in the spokes?
maybe the gearbox will never replace the derailleur in XC or enduro, but in DH or FR it could be a better solution. for the moment it's just an alternative, but to my mind a very good alternative, effective and reliable, against the business of derailleurs.
fitjoani, you are on the money, literally! It is about money.
I always choose, by the type of the product, not company name, and also by the price, and opinions of people who use stuff, which means NO PRO riders opinions, because they always MUST say, how super duper that thing is.
Also pro riders often have an influence on design tweaks/ spec changes to bikes which I think is pretty cool.
Would have been nice to see the benefits of gearbox being explored more instead of just praising how far mechs have come, it's impressive but i don't know how much more these firms can polish a turd..
*goes to clean and tweak drivetrain* (...again)
I am not certain how much better derailler drivetrains are now compared to 5 or 20 years ago. Bending of hangers still happens people have told me using clutches flogs derailler pivots very quickly, and cassette sprockets still buckle over (which they didn't do until 8spd was introduced).
I have been riding various gearbox bikes I've made for the last 8 years so am not up with the current derailler trends, but every time I ride one I notice the following things 1) I have to pedal to change gears 2) it takes a long time for the gear to change 3) the chain still slaps around, though xx1 is a bunch quieter.
I don't think the gearbox is perfect, and I don't think the derailler is dead, but as said elsewhere it is all about choosing your compromise. Something xtr or xx1 light, saint reliable that was as silent pedalling as xx1 and coasting like a zerode, but shifted like hammerschmit would be great please!
As for Dave weagel's saying that they don't have more range how often is that relevant? But the pinion has something like a 636% range which is more than anything else.
As for following what the wc dhers do they are not a good lead unless you also plan to chew through 3 or 4 back wheels a weekend.
Finally that was a terribly one sided artical, and totally polarised poll options. maybe rc will add something to it, he has tried a few things in his time, like elevated chainstays, and can see that we aren't at the end of the line yet.
Light and clever gearbox, fits most frames:
www.schlumpf.ch
Just needs 2 more gears and I am buying one for my dh rigg.
This one actually feels really good. And the gearchangebutton is perfect.
Can you give a brief outline of the bike you are designing, frame sizes, travel, geometry etc?? I have been looking for a suitable gearbox bike for a while, for your info Nicolai have just dropped the Pinion gearbox from their freeride/mini DH bikes because, they had a couple of failures!!
All the best, Gary.
Oh and the final thing, the horozontal dropout is quite lengthy so you can adjust the rear centre to change the handling from 'pop and kick' to 'long and planted' using a few extra links in the chain.
It's meant to be one frame that, with a few component changes, can go from AM to UK DH. Basically, the bike I want is something I can take to the Alps with a pair of Revs, Lyriks, Flows and Crests, then swap around in under 20min to be a trail bike, or DH bike. Frame material will be carbon.
I'm currently in the process of making the moulds for the prototype but a full time job kinda makes this a slow process.
I'm from the UK and have been slowly designing a gearbox DH/AM bike for many years now, but have just stepped things up in the last few months - done tonnes of CAD work, many spreadsheets, tonnes of research into hubs etc and have just ordered steel butted tubing (yes I know everyone is going to shout out that steel is heavy and not cool enough for DH bikes but I care little for the opinions of the average MTB numpty)... totally agree with your point on chainline - frees up options for tuning the anti-squat characteristics with a gearbox above the bottom bracket, without suffering horrible amounts of pedal feedback.
Intend to be building the first proto this summer - I'm also working in mech engineering job but leaving in 5 weeks and will finally have some time free to build! :-)
Anyway if you want to keep in touch email me. Mark
2) For a structural engineered product, function should come first, not fashion!
3) Sounds good - would be good to see what yr up to!
4) agreed Willie - Carbon, Steel & Ti Rule supreme!
Everything I read on hear is just complete bollocks these days. The articles are one sided and the videos are just slomo, out of context, pretentious bollocks obviously filmed by a hipster (AKA Dick head).
I'm out of hear........ Hello vital MTB and single track mag.
Just kidding man :-)
.
Funny, those SRAM clutches failing, Shimano pivots wearing too fast and bendy chain rings were all false alarms then?
You forgot to mention industry inertia and nepotism. Shimano, SRAM (and Campag) have a huge financial stake in things staying the way they are, even supposed revolutions like XX1 are just what went before plus/minus a couple of details.
.
OEM, new sales, damage part replacement, it's a huge gravy train that any kind of all new system could derail. Neither of the big two are going to risk their bottom line on something they don't already know will sell, so gear boxes are going to stay as a niche for the specialist, who'll have a huge grin as he cruises past your broken bike.
This sophomoric level of writing reminds me why the big boys hire people who can actually ride AND know how to engineer stuff through using 10-30 legt test monkeys vs some guy who was given a login to write an article...and if wa saucy made $500 doing so.
Peeps. Go to our local library. Read the issues between '89-'93. Look at the dumb ass comments wanna be journalist wrote back then. Then re-read this. Then to ride and laugh.
"Replacement" argument is bogus. 99% of derailleurs sold die with the bike and are never replaced. It is just the pink-bike regulars running into boulders, rest of the bike riders just ride around.
That said, I was pretty close to ordering Nicolai with Pinion, it is the way of the future, but the price was not right.. I wish they had a lighter, cheaper box with less gears.
My current rig, which is a steel 29er HT frame, RS Rebas, KS Lev dropper, HEAVY brooks leather saddle & time pedals comes in at 28.4 lbs. I could make it lighter by going back to the derailleur but for what reason? I'm obviously biased but why spend money on making something lighter when I could just loose a little weight of my arse and belly for free!
I'd totally agree that it was 'very' expensive to buy at the outset but to date my only 'replacement' costs for the last 9 years has been a new chain, rear cog & a oil lub every year. That's circa £50 per year compared to...?
As for ongoing maintenance, Scotland isn't the driest, dustiest place on earth (!!) but every 100ish miles it gets a quick hose, rub & a squirt of oil on the chain. That's circa 10mins per 100ish miles compared to...?
Gearboxes are far from perfect but at the end of the day, despite the massive improvements made, derailleurs still get broken or twisted and in the long term IMO they still cost more to run....never mind the faffing about.
One benefit that is often overlooked is the fact that a gearbox is a closed system and requires little to non maintenance aside from a regular oil change-so in cases where riding takes place and really mucks up drivetrains, it makes sense.
Personally, I got a Pinion bike because i hate derailleurs and I always wanted a Nic..
Was this an opinion piece or a thinly veiled advertorial? It certainly wasn't a quality discussion piece.
If anything, the "evolution" of the derailleur is reducing reliability and life of parts; when we've gone from 8 to 9 speed the chain failure went up dramatically, when we've gone up to 10sp, we ticked up failure even more. Now we're on 11sp and we've regained some of the 10sp fragility by modifying the front ring and eliminating the ability to shift into other front rings.
Furthermore, these dinner plate sized cogs are pushing weight to the rear axle, pushing the weight bias further to the rear. The cost of these systems is astronomical, wear items add up to over $500 (between just the chain and cassette, without calculating front chainring).
Progress? I'd call is stunting. The derailleur is stunted.
Cost is often cited as a hindrance to GB frames, but the Zerode G2 frame works out to around £2500, which is in the same bracket as other high-end frames, and it includes a big chunk of your drive train in that price (Nicolai's Nucleon E2 and Pinion-equipped Ion 20 are still lottery-win-list items, unfortunately). If I had two and a half grand to spend on a new frame, it'd be the Zerode, without question (the Cavalerie DH bike featured a while ago also looks very promising).
With all that said, I don't think we'll see the extinction of the derailleur-based drive train, nor the complete dominance of the gearbox. What I hope is that they become equally matched, and then we would be free to choose the system that best meets our needs or preferences.
At the risk of standing atop my soapbox screaming "CONSPIRACY!", apart from the final paragraph, the whole article smacks of being "encouraged" by the marketing departments of certain, large invested parties. Of course, there was probably no ulterior motive or maliciousness intended on Mike's part and may simply have been a poorly-presented piece design to spark some discussion on an interesting topic.
The problem with gearboxes, like Pinion, is that they try to mimic roadies need for a gazillion gears, so that their shaved legs always spin at some precise "cadense", or whatever that is.
On my mountain bike, I need like 6 gears, over wide range though. Make it simple like that, and it will be light and cheap enough.
I had an X9 last all of 5 days last season, without even tagging it on a rock. That's the kind of reliability I've come to expect from SRAM products though.
Mike have you ever riden a Zerode?? Show me a derailleur that you can shift while NOT moving/pedaling to any gear you want. That's right because you can't. On a Zerode you can.
1. Until I ride a gearbox bike personally, I have no way to know how good they are. I would like to try one.
2. My current SRAM X9 and better 2x10 transmissions have been flawless.
3. My saint and XT drivetrains have been flawless.
4. My single speed drivetrains have been flawless.
I ride this www.pinkbike.com/photo/8865103 'singlespeed' hammershmidt and will never go back despite all pain on uphill =) If Zerode was more playful bike would buy one tomorrow!
And a simple coil shock is a coiled up piece of steel around a body that has a bit of oil in it...a shock without a damper is a lot simpler than a gearbox"
Dear mnorris; if it has oil in it, it also has damping. the spring only sets the sag and returns the bike to the desired ride height after the damping has controlled the speed of travel. A shock without damping is a disaster waiting to happen
Anyway when it came for me to swap my bike I've still purchased a conventional 1x9 rear derailleur equipped Knolly Podium (used), the point for me is not only the high (ridicolously high) price tag of a gearbox bike and the lack of used GB bikes around, but also the fact that I don't like very much any of those weird frames incorporating a "pineapple-like" gear-hub or a huge box (like those Alutech fanes). If only they made a smaller gearbox (with less gears) that doesn't affect much the frame shape...
It's frustrating that genuine evolution is being stifled because of this. What I'd love to see happen is for either SRAM or Shimano to buy Pinion, spend another 12-18 months tweaking the design with their considerable R&D resources, then work with either Specialized, Trek or Giant - or, even better, all three - to produce a gearbox-equipped bike for the mass market.
If that happened today, I genuinely believe that within maybe five or ten years, the majority of high-end bikes would be sold with gearboxes.
Well mainly because deraileurs don't break that often, ok they are hanging out but rarely actually will a racer be subjected to a break during a race run. I doubt racers will sacrifice overall consistent weight and less transfer for the off chance they might save a race run what less than 1% of the time. It's just not worth it.
I can't see it happening right now.
If they can manage to deliver a gearbox that matches the weight than they could have more plausibility, we would have to see the efficiancy be up there too, if they can match these then of course we could have it overtake. Essentially we are moving the weight central and low, while removing the deraileur breakage potential. But the question is can and will they be able to achieve these. Weight no doubt but efficiency, unsure. In a world of eh where we can win by 0.1 that little 3% less pedal efficiancy or power transfer may matter at the top.
For the average dh rider who doesn't care about 0.1 than they seem like a viable option even now.
Handling of a gearbox bike, especially DH feels much more balanced.
The Big Ss will still get massive sales, as they can market the latest and greatest improvements on a more expensive product, and they can add perishability to gearboxs in the guise of efficiency and light weight. They're just milking the current cash cow til it dies.
If a gearbox is so good then sign me up. All of us would sell our children for a faster ride.
We will be there in a few more years.
You can create a gearbox that might do one or two of those things, but it would be next to impossible to do all of those things. The only way to make it as light or lighter than a typical drive train is to make the gearbox a single axis drive train and have an ultra lightweight fixed rear hub. To do that, you sacrifice the number of gears and reliability because you need synchros and mechanisms to make the input and output shafts counter rotate. If you ignore the weight issue, you can get more gearing combos but decrease the reliability due to the complexity of extra moving parts. Either way you go you sacrifice some aspect of what you are trying to improve on a conventional RD setup.
I think the bottom line is that Mike is right on the money here. A while back rear mechs were troublesome enough to make us want gearboxes. But RD's have come so far now that the drawbacks we once had are making the development of a gearbox totally unneeded. A high end drive train is going to way much less, be easier to work on, have less drag, and more gearing combinations than a gearbox ever will. To me, gearboxes are really not practical now that we have made such improvements to the conventional setups.
#2. Why would a sram 11 speed help them? They only need at the most three gears for they do very little pedaling.
#3. Most guys push their downhill bikes up hills and coast down them for they do very little pedaling.
#4. I see guys riding from the parking lot to the lift lines why do they need gears for that? they do very little pedaling.
www.bitraptor.com/en_edyson_CVT.html
www.pinkbike.com/video/218538
Break your derailleur, ride no chain the rest of the day? All of a sudden, it seems so quiet............
maybe we havent woked it out on bikes yet?
That is a serious landing man
Have Der's gotten a LOT better in the last 5 years??? yes, but it's still polishing a turd. We've already taken a LOT of things from the MX world, yet we're still shifting with a contraption that adds useless unsprung weight to the rear suspension and hangs down in harms way 24/7.
Sadly, the idiot who yells the loudest gets the most attention and SRAM and Shimano have been doing everything they can to have people paying the most attention to their lateral progress in the drive-train world.
plus if my derailleur gets hit off or br breaks I can just come on here and buy another one for about £40-£60 for a good one. so how does this box save me money?
I have explained above how easy the gears are to tune, takes all of a few seconds at best, to a few minutes if gyou need to change more cable then the barrel adjuster permits. and tensioning the chain takes maybe ten minutes. Bith are done every few months at the most extreme of cases. Nobody bothers servicing the Alfines, but if you did, it's take about three beers tops, or you could buy a new one for the cost of a new fancy mech and cassette and chain. This would be after what would be years of riding for most. It's really a no brainer as far as maintenance and running costs go. No chain guide shenanigans either.
but then you say "So that means they cost $650au to own for the first two years."
now no offence but as the old saying goes don't change anything that's not broke.
thanks but you have more chance of me blowing a chimp but thanks for taking the time to try and convert me
Pinion is great but its total overkill. This should have 5 gears with big spacing and half weight/bulk. Finetuning should happen with rearsprocket and chainwheel size. Gearchange with a footknob on the crank.