Slashdot Mirror
Bicycle Tech Drivetrain Advances Showcased
whoda writes "For many years, bicycles have had very few advancements in drivetrain technology. This is finally changing. The newly formed g-Boxx Standard has been incorporated into the new Nicolai Nucleon TFR bicycle frame. This bike uses an internally
geared 14 speed planetary gear system, mounted in the center of the bicycle, to drive the rear wheel using a conventional chain. The design allows the chain to run inside of the frame. This removes many fragile components from the bicycle, and allows a more rigid frame structure to be made. Evil Bikes have also shown a protoype
Evil 2013i hardtail which also incorporates this new standard - I've found the toy I want for the holidays."
Internal gearing in bicycles is not, new, it just never catches on.
What if the chain falls off though? if it is inside the frame, you'd be kinda screwed.
Pretty sweet though, now i don't have to worry about always getting my damn shoelaces stuck on the gear
~Chris Hammond
This just means now that if something breaks down, it would be hard as heck to get at it. Parts inside the frame? Kind of hard to do trailside maintainence on that! (Especially since it's not from a well known component manufacturer.
I'll wait until I see it on the World Cup circuit before trying it myself...
How about shaft drive?
Imagine him on one of these.... they don't look strong enough, to me..
Look at that photo carefully. Notice that part of the chain is exposed. Now just were do you think all the road dirt and other muck is going to end up?
but I wonder what stops developing a bike with a shaft drive instead of chain?
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
Sounds good for mountain bikes that need to protect the chain and sprockets but might add some unnecessary weight to roadbikes.
In an effort to simplify this derailleur based drivetrain system, engineers invented a hub based drivetrain, whereby the rear hub contains a planetary style internal transmission system. In this case, the cassette, front chain ring assembly and both front and rear derailleurs are not necessary, thus providing for a more simplified gear change mechanism.
You can check for more obscure and otherwise different gear change systems in the history link.
Transmission bikes on the other hand contain a transmission mounted inside the main frame - the classic bottom bracket housing is replaced by an integrated transmission. Similar to previously described gear change mechanisms, a chain or belt drive system is used to provide power to the rear wheel. In this case, the chain (or belt drive) does not have any shifting duties.
this chain won't break or bounce off in the field and be a pain to fix. What about lubing, inspecting for stretch and replacing. How long does this gear system last and who much are parts. I need to dig in and see a lot more info than what I've found so far.
>16-19kg (35-40lbs) for a complete bike
Comment would be superfluous.
...are what, thirty-plus years old now? As are enclosed chain cages. This is just shuffling parts around in the ages old quest to dethrone the externally derailed bicycle.
The Q looks horrific, the weight is high, the chain is still exposed, there's no easy way to clean the frame out when it gets filled with the muck and water that the chain will inevitably drag in, the lanetary gearing is less efficient than a pure chain drive. Yeah, I can really see why you'd want that setup: to look like an idiot with a fat wallet and a small brain. Oh, and prepare to be savaged by rec.bicycles.tech, where the posters actually know a bit about the technical issues.
I remember a friend of mine was dreaming up a design for something like this but I never though that would materialize.... Full info and photos on that pinkbike website on that bike along with an mp3 interview with the creator. here's the link http://www.pinkbike.com/modules/news/?op=articlevi ew&id=1755
You need to see a doctor.
The fact that something encased like this would be perfect for downhilling, where weight isn't a big deal, is something that goes without saying.
Or were you implying that this advance would be useless for touring and road biking?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
EVIL BIKES!
Driven through a continuously variable transmission, like those used in many motorcycles. They are more reliable, less prone to breakage than a chain.
I remember seeing bikes with elliptical gears in an old popular mechanics they claimed match the power transfer curve of the human body, that would lower the gear ratio at the point you have less energy to push. They said it was about 20% more efficient or something like that, but I never saw it catch on much. Maybe the patent fees were too high.
My rights don't need management.
They are raced on some of the most demanding downhill courses in the world.
They are strong and have an excellent reputation by hardcore mountain bikers.And 40 pounds for a complete bike of this type is fairly light to be honest.
There are videos available from the main Nicolai Home Page
this entire standard is designed for the freeride/downhill segment of MTB owners that require a *lot* of travel out of a full suspension rig without the detractions that come with using a standard shifting system (shimano style derailleurs tend to get ripped off at 60mph when they come in contact with a rock) also having the bike shift itself when the suspension compresses would be considered a downfall.. trust me.. i used to race DH.
Alex 'Psycho' P.
Source?!?!?
For how many days, I wonder? What if after 20 days, the pure fun just goes away for me? Do you take it in for a free repair?
And when going downhill, more weight is a good thing. Why do you think downhill skiers attach weights to their bodies?
want to try fixing that with the tools in your underseat bag on the side of a singletrack about ten miles from your car?
I don't think so.
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
You could simply ride fifteen pounds of funk.
One gear -> stronger legs, more distributed workout, less to maintain, fewer parts to fail, just mo' fun
Every once in a while someone spends a crapload of money trying to change the fundamentals of the bicycle, but really, other than the derailleur, not much has changed in over 100 years.
http://www.g-boxx.org/_2-english/_2-index-engl.htm l
I would love one of these!
Okay, I admit the chain-inside-the-frame thing is cool : less crap on the legs, cleaner, well lubed chain, etc... But somehow, there has been a notion that current bike drivetrains (i.e. chain+derailleur) are inadequats. There are continuously people who dream of making CVTs for bikes, or non-rotating drivetrains or whatever, to replace the "old" chain-and-derailleur. Well here are some facts :
...
- A chain/derailleur system is the only system that offers that many speeds under 2Kg
- Bicyclists don't need Continuously Variable Transmissions : human legs are incredibly efficient over a range of speeds from 0 to 13/140 RPM
- A bicycle is virtually the only vehicle where a chain drive is useful and needed, because the "engine" (you) is slower than the wheel, which is unique amongst all vehicles. This is also why any other kind of transmission will fail miserably compared to a chain drive in terms of efficiency (a chain drive routinely gets over 97% efficiency, and you need that with the 75W-100W power you get out of an average rider).
- A cyclist who's moderately used to shifting well will *not* feel impaired by derailleur actions.
- A chain + derailleur system is maintainable on the road. Just try to service a geared hub on the road
- Geared hubs are great for compacity and easy maintaining. However, their efficiency sucks. For example, a 7-speed Sachs hub can go down to 90% efficiency. That's a lot of power loss with under 100W of input power.
For more bicycling myth debunking, read the rec.bicycles.tech newsgroup and the Bicycle Science list.
I do over 10000Km/year and, apart from chain cleaning and re-lubing, I think the derailleur system is very adequate.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Reading these comments, it looks like 99% of the detractors of this concept fail to understand that the biggest plague of the downhill racer is the rear derailleur - it hangs in a VERY exposed position and is extremely easy to rip off. When you lose your rear derailleur in a DH race, your chances of making the podium are slim. Believe me, it happens a LOT, and it gets expensive and very annoying.
Another thing people fail to realize is that this concept is about DH bikes, not about cross-country bikes. It may weigh a lot, but a 40-pound DH bike is pretty light.
Too many opinions, not enough brain power to go around, if you ask me. If you ride a 23 pound XC-racer, you might as well comment on the suitability of an 8" travel, 12 pound, dual crown suspension fork for your riding style.
anyone ridden one?
tasty electronic music vittles
I spend a lot of time on high-performance Human Powered Vehicles (HPVs), and efficiency is a big thing among high-speed bikes. The main problem with these internally geared drivetrains is that they are not very efficient at all. They rob you one heck of a lot more power than chains and derailers. The regular chain and derailer design is something in the neighborhood of 97-98% efficient, while these geared drivetrains are about 70% or less.
The main advantage of the internal gears is for downhill mountain bikes. Drivetrain efficiency is not as much of an issue since gravity is doing most of the work, and there is no risk of losing your chain in mid air at 40mph.
Joao "member of far too many HPV and bicycle clubs and associations" de Souza
That brings back memories of my Bridgestone MB-1...ahh, those were the days. I still hadn't caught on to computers, and bicycles were my great love. To tell the truth, I do live in Italy now, and ride a sweet custom Morello steel ride with campy parts, although I spend too much time with the computers and not enough out riding...
Bridgestones were nice bikes. High quality, low on buzzword crap. Light, fast, strong. I miss the days befor suspension and "gnarly d00dz extreme sportz" got ahold of mountain biking. Just a bunch of guys out riding on cool trails... sigh.
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
The three top priorities for racing bikes are weight, weight and weight. Speaking as a lifelong rider, racer and former messenger, stuff like this never works out too well in practice. Anyone tried the electronic shifting systems? They (mostly) suck.
There have been may refinements, but as the article post says "few advancements in drivetrain technology" because what we have currently is very lightweight, works extremely well, is very reliable, and is easy to service.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
When you lose your rear derailleur in a DH race, your chances of making the podium are slim. Believe me, it happens a LOT, and it gets expensive and very annoying.
...
All the good downhillers I know in my neck of the wood have short-tail road derailleurs that don't hang down as much, a big bash-plate around the derailleur and chainstay, and anti-derailling/chainslap/chainsuck rollers on top and bottom of the chainwheel. None of them seem to lose derailleurs a lot
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
the biggest plague of the downhill racer is the rear derailleur - it hangs in a VERY exposed position and is extremely easy to rip off.
Maybe somebody should invent a derailleur cage or something to protect the mechanism from getting ripped off by rocks/stumps/whatever.
I think a previous poster said something about a chain driven bike being 97% efficient. Hard to beat that, so why not just protect the already super-efficient mechanism?
Biopace. Some people liked it, others didn't. These days everyone's using clipless pedals anyway, making for much smoother power transmission all the way around and elliptical chainrings yet less sensible.
As a single track rider, I believe this will catch on. However, this is not going to be the type of technology that average joe will need/want on a bike. This type of system will be very costly on weight, which is a huge issue in most varieties of biking. On the flip-side, downhill bikes generally outweight single track bikes by 10-15 lbs. This being the case, a couple more pounds will not have a great impact on this particular breed of the sport. I think this will catch on at the high end of downhill and dual-slalom area of biking, but not anywhere else until the weight can be drastially cut.
(in my defense: I was 9 at the time, so I wore what mom bought me, and she was not alone (by any stretch of the imagination) in thinking that bell-bottoms were cool. I didn't really care, but I did hate how they always got caught in my chain, pretty much guaranteeing that all my bell-bottoms had nice greasy chain marks all over the bottom :) )
I think a previous poster said something about a chain driven bike being 97% efficient. Hard to beat that, so why not just protect the already super-efficient mechanism?
People who go down hills don't have pedalling efficiency as a prime requirement for their bikes, since gravity does the work for them most of the time.
Great. The Bike was just released and we already broke it. =D
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
I have, and it's kewl!
A scooter that looks and rides like a real motorbike :-)
:-)
:-)))
DNA's are fantastic
Simon.
Escaping the tyranny of London Underground
Physicists get Hadrons!
Does it run Linux?
short cage roadie derailleurs are nice, and they're a little cheaper too.
But they don't solve the problem. If you don't know DH'ers who lose derailleurs frequently, there must not be many rocks around there! Or maybe they're just not riding hard......:p The chainguide that protects the chainring doesn't do squat for the derailleur, unfortunately.
I race Expert DH and go thru one road derailluer every month or so. Some people [generally the REALLY fast guys] go thru one every weekend in really rocky areas.
in DH racing pedaling efficiency is pretty important. Not nearly to the degree it is in road or XC obviously.
I'd have to say that the efficiency is the only real downside of that system. It may weigh a lot, but it puts the weight really low in the frame (low COG makes the bike corner great) and takes a little weight off the rear wheel (reduces unsprung weight).
Nobody ever stole mine...
During my bicycling and bell bottom years (we're talking paleolithic era more or less), I put large rubber bands around my ankles after wrapping the bell bottoms around my leg. This effectively made them straight legs while I was on the bike and kept em outta the way.
Drawbacks:
You kinds looked like a dork. But then just wearing bell bottoms... I just made sure I removed them the moment I got off the bike. That pretty much avoided the dork effect.
If the rubber band wasn't quite big enough, it worked like a torniquet, at least leaving a small canyon running around your leg if not severely lessing the blood flow. Rubber bands are cheap and available in many sizes. After a small amount of experimentation, I found suitable ones for the job.
"A girl sits home on a Saturday, she could slit her wrists, a guy sits home on a Saturday he could jerkoff all over himself it's a great night"
The Chain Allways breaks.. They should be opting for more efficient Belt drives :) Atleast they only slip:)
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
I've been racing bikes since I was ten, (mumble) years ago, and know that no matter how good the chain is, how well it's tensioned, geared and aligned it can still cause grief. Sure, this design may reduce the frequency of some problems but the others are going to be far worse than before, with some new problems added due to foreign object intrusion / contamination. The exposed portion of the chain will act as a conveyor belt to pull all that dirt and crap inside the frame where it is out of sight, gradually building up until...splat!
Now if they gone the whole hog and made it direct drive via a shaft, like some motorbikes, I'd be interested, but as it is I'll stick with what I know and trust.
Go permanent? In your dreams and my worst nightmares.
the chain breaks? The gear bearings wear out? You want to change your ratios? You want a light bike?
Granted, this looks like it's just for offroad applications, so I therefore don't care being a road racer... but it seems like this could use a bit more planning with respect to maintenance..
All bicycle innovation is welcome, but...
It usually is absurd, pointless, and only of interest to either professional racers or the people who will spend for a bicycle than a used car.
What we bike riders really need is:
1) Tires that don't go flat! Or, rather, I should say... tires that don't go flat and only cost two or three minimum wage units. $15 US. Yes there are Kevlar tires that are as thin as your thumb and cost $200, hold 100 PSI air pressure, and rarely go flat, but they don't count.
2) Something to keep the rain and road dirt from putting a big skunk stripe up our backs when riding in wet climates. There are fenders, but they don't work well.
3) The ability to fold the frame so that it can fit in the back of a small car or on the bus.
4) Brakes that work in the rain.
5) Tires that don't go flat. So important, I'm saying it twice.
We don't need auto transmissions, $150 helmets, $1500 frames that weigh next to nothing, and stupid yuppie mommies who want to pass stupid yuppie mommie laws to protect us for our own good.
The ones who drive around Oregon and California with the east coast Ivy League college decals on the back window of their Volvo's, almost kill you when they cut you off in the bike lane ("I didn't see you, and besides, you should be wearing a helmet!" "Well yeah, dumb bitch, you were changing the tape, dialing the phone, and reaching for the babie's bottle on the floor while changing lanes."
In fact, I HATE bicycle helmets. Their sole purpose is to show all the people driving around that the person on the bike is middle class, has a car at home, can afford a $100 helmet, and is seriously concerned about saving the environment to the point of actually going out into the public on a bicycle. The guys who don't speak English and ride a bicycle because they make $7 an hour and have four kids aren't wearing helmets.
"But," the yuppies tell me, "you NEED a helmet for safety! It should be illegal to ride without one."
Bull. The same people who say this think nothing about strapping two skinny long little boards to their feet and flying down an snow-covered mountain at 50 MPH with nothing on their heads but designer sunglasses!
When they put a Burger King on the top of the ski slope then all the yuppies will start wearing $200 ski helmets to show how concerned about safety they really are (and to make sure that no one confuses them with the people who work at the BK and ski home.)
i think this would be more appropriate in a "next generation" setting.
Reading your comment, I don't see how ordinary readers of the article or the links given are supposed to know that this design is only to be used for downhill racing, a very small niche application for bicycles. So it's not lack of "brain power" (nice ad hom), but a poorly written article on the author's part and a bad assumption on your part. But that's just my opinion...
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
100W? are you kidding me? I am not a fast cyclist by any stretch of the imagination (I just do triathlons, any cat4 cyclist can kill me easily) and I can do 200W sustained over fairly long (1h+) periods of time, Armstrong IIRC can do 400-500W sustained, and sprinters (Pantani) can generate up to 2000W for short periods of time.
:)
Also the most efficient cadence (in terms of power generation) is more like between 90 and 110rpm (of course you have to train to have a 'round' pedal stroke, 'mashers' tend to pedal around 70rpm) and the range of maximal power generation is not that wide (in terms of rpm), that's why the latest geartrains have 10 cogs at the back (and 2 or sometimes 3 at the front). If human legs were =incredibly= efficient we'd all be riding single speed bikes
Agreed about the rest, internal drivetrains are a fad that doesn't seem to want to go away: the only application where IMHO they make some sense is pure downhill, where hitting your derailleur on a rock can put you out of the race and where pedaling power doesn't really matter that much...
-- the cake is a lie
503 comments: "It sux."
(Further proving the axiom that all hype no substance, and the low attention span caused by television commercials makes everyone believe that anything new sux, unless presented in a movie trailer, then it only sux after it's paid for)
10 comments: "That's pretty cool. Too bad it costs money."
2 comments: "Does it run Linux?"
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
The aft system contains a rear hub which houses the cassette assembly, providing up to 9 different gearing ratios
My Airborne Zeppelin is all Campy and a 10-speed on the rear sprocket. Combined with a triple up front this is 30 effective gears (and ratios). Shimano is not the only thing on the planet and certainly not the best.
IANAMTBR (I am not a mountain biker) but those I-drive bottom bracket systems are pieces of shite. Sure they are very adjustible, yada, yada, but when you are 30 miles from fuck-all and it gives up the ghost you'll wish you had a tough-as-nails XTR bottom bracket. Simple is beautiful on a bicycle. That's why I like them. I hope it is light! If it isn't then you are not going to sell this stuff, ever.
Personally, I am waiting for the Campy/Shimano electric shifts to get cheap enough.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
I thought most slashdotters didn't see the light of day...much less to do some bike riding...
MY SECRET DIARIES
http://saveie6.com/
That said, the current generation of sprung frame mountian bikes do provice considerable advantages over rigid frames. You will pay for those advantages. If you've got the cash to play, bully for you and have a great time.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It sucks no matter how it works. Learn to use internal combustion engines and enjoy life.
I had a bike with internal gears in the early 60's.
The Truth About Slashdot
You haven't pitched yourself off the side of a mountain at 40 miles an hour, dodging rocks that are bigger than you, going down inclines that people could rapel down, airborne for a good portion of it, while your wheels are bouncing thru soccer ball sized loose rocks when you are on the ground have you? :)
I've ridden 10s of thousands of miles and I'm here to say that a bicycle helmet is an absolute necessity, period. I've completely destroyed two helmets and scraped several more. I once scraped right through the plastic cover of a helmet and well into the insulation. If I hadn't been wearing it my scalp, hair, and a decent chunk of skull would have been left behind on the road.
Yes, you do. It's a matter of when, not if. Every cyclist wrecks, and some wrecks you land on your head. Why would you not want to protect your head?
On this we agree: the government should stay the fuck out of decisions that affect only my own health. Anyone above the age of consent should be able to ride anything with as much or as little safety equipment as they desire, as long as no one else is at risk of harm. Mandatory helmet laws are like anything else the government does "for your own good:" dangerous.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
On the plastic cover that was removed for the photo? If there is none, it would not be hard to make. Considering the 40 lb curb weight of this anchor, you might as well make the cover out of cast iron. Now that's durable!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
sorry if I sound like a troll, but I've been a serious cyclist for over 20 years now, done competition at the USA national level (okay, I got waxed, but I was there!), worked in the industry (local shop, major retailer, manufacturer), and have read way too much hype about new stuff. reading the comments here reminds me of a bunch of bike guys sitting around talking about how cool Windows ME was when it came out.
/. anyway. there are several posters here that seem to be actual riders, but the great majority don't seem to be very discerning cyclists.
okay, okay, we're just off our usual topic set here. but someone tell me why this story is on
first, this supposedly new and supposedly cool design is, as others have already pointed out, just recycled concepts, the main function of which is to separate the consumer from his/her cash.
these concepts have all been relatively stillborn over the years mainly because they are more expensive, less reliable and heavier than existing designs. plus, internally geared hubs are fine for the grandpa and grandma riding around the retirement community, but they are notoriously inefficient for someone trying to actually go fast.
reasonable cost is important because stuff breaks. always. even the unbreakable stuff.
reliability is important because we'd all like to ride home, not walk. plus it keeps us from having to pay for more stuff. this looks like stuff designed for freestyle use, and that stuff gets thrashed.
light weight is important if you ever have to (a) accelerate the bike (including changing its direction, or (b) go uphill. maybe also (c) put the damn thing on top of your car.
anyway, these bikes look like expensive pigs using minimally tested technology. we should all be sneering at this.
I mean, shit, if you don't want your shoelaces to get caught in the chainrings, double tie them. put a fucking rubber band around your pants cuff.
Saeco was running electric Campy shifters on their Cannondales this year. I recall them winning one stage of le Tour.
BUT.
I really don't want my derailleurs to run out of batteries when I need them, and manual shifts just fine as far as I'm concerned.
I have a question, tho many probably know the answer. As a disclaimer, I AM NOT A CYCLIST!! (ianac?).
that said, wouldn't be possible to mount the derailleur ABOVE the gears so that it is not so prone to snag on rocks, etc? I would think that would help a lot.
Let me know.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Since we are getting rid of chains, I thought that we might be interested in air free tires. The site has instructions on how to choose the correct size & how to install it.
Take care...
Internal gearing systems are nearly as old as bicycles themselves dating back to around 1909 w/ Sturmey-Archer and others making them for years and years, mostly those old 3 speeds. They are terribly in-efficient when compared to your typical chain and cog system (95+% efficient I think). They also tend to weight more.... read they went the way of solid tires and wooden rims... bye bye. If you want technology check Shimano's and Campy's new 20 speed road setups: http://dura-ace.shimano.com/publish/content/duraac e/en/home/the_product0/drive_train.html
http://campagnolo.com/groupsets.php?gid=1&cid= all
ps: Campy even uses php for their website... they can't be all bad!
"...wouldn't be possible to mount the derailleur ABOVE the gears" No. The derailleur must reposition the chain in its direction of travel, and the chain travels from the bottom of the cluster (the rear bunch of gears) around the top.
----- Indecision is the key to flexibility.
The derailleur has to shift the chain to the right position before it reaches the cluster so that it feeds onto the correct sprocket. Since the chain is going up and behind the cluster at that time, the derailleur has to be on the bottom. On the front chainrings, the derailleur is on top and wouldn't work on the bottom.
Comeon. Let's be serious.
Bikes with drailleurs have the most efficient transmission possible. Because a chain, unlike gears, has no inherent inefficiency caused by the gear teeth engaging and disengaging themselves. With a pair of gears, the distance of point of contact between teeth and the axis varies as each gear teerh engage and disengages the opposing gear teeth.
The result: non-constant velocity at the output of the geartrain. This induces vibration and is a source of drag.
On a chain, the distance of the point of contact of the chain link with the teeth remains constant WHERE THE POWER IS APPLIED TO THE CHAIN. Of course, the distance varies when the link engages the teeth, but as it happens for a very small percentage of the time the links are around the wheel, the gear teeth can be cut in a shape that does not allow any teeth to contact the chain until it is firmly seated against the gear.
A chain transmission will therefore offer the most efficient power transmission possible.
This is why race bicycles have chain drives. They cannot afford to lose the slightest erg of effort!!! This is why many motorcycles have chain drives, too. And the drailleur offers the best solution: variable diameter sprocket gears! The number of intermediate points between the cyclist leg and the pavement is kept to a minimum. How many inner gears and clutches does that 14-speed planetary gearcase have???
And a planetary gear change is not the most efficient design around. Ford-Ts had planetary gear transmissions. Cars have evolved a little bit since then, in case you haven't noticed.
ja
Uh, no. Unless you prefer looking at the scenery through your ass. You'd be going backwards.
The derailleur is on the bottom because that's the direction the chain travels. Clockwise, viewed from the right side. The derailleur is the chain tensioner, and it also moves the chain from one sprocket to another to change ratios. If it was on the top, the action of pedaling would stretch it out, lose the tension of the chain and provide no motive power. And the chain would fall off the sprockets through the lack of tension.
Nope, it belongs on the bottom because that's how it works.
You can't take the sky from me!
Cross the chain :)
How about a two wheel drive system for mountain bikers. The power could be transferred via a shaft through the frame. A chain could then transfer power to the front wheel.
Front wheel power would be especially valuable while going uphill.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
How much weight? How much drag? The deraileur system has its drawbacks, but it's light and efficient. I can see the ruggedness being a big advantage for cyclocross, mountain bikes, and commuters--but the "pro racers" cited in the web page (not to mention serious amateurs) count every gram on their bike, and look to lose every bit of unnecessary friction. At high levels of competition, small differences are the margin of vistory (though for average riders, there's more to be gained above the waistline than under the saddle).
So, for a planetary gear to be developed and become widely used, it would first have to prove value to professionals beyond the cost (i.e. better performance for weight, less weight, etc.). Then, it would need to be raced a bunch. Then, other companies/teams will use it. Finally, it will make it to amatures/recreation cyclists.
(Both suspension for mountain bikes and "dual control" brake levers/shifters for road bikes followed such a pattern--they started at the high end professional use, and now, ten years later, almost every bike of the class include it.)
You might be able to get this as a desired feature for pros. Might even get a few demo bikes to use it. However, it will be a long while before it is raced.
Why? Professional/elite amature cycling is controled by the UCI at the international level (both road and mountain). The UCI is very hesitent to allow inovation (recently banning disk brakes on cycle-cross bikes). The do tend to be more flexible for mountain biking (and, as it isn't an American invention, might be greeted more warmly).
However, it doesn't conform to the notion of a "traditional" bicycle, and thus, it won't get raced. And I regret that it will be stuck as a "fringe" idea.
(Yes, there are exceptions--areo bars and mountain bikes themselves. Still doubt it).
Isn't the innovation of this that it uses planetary gearboxes, which are energy efficient and not prone to wear down quickly? They can in no way be compared to shaft drive gearboxes.
(planetary gearboxes are as an example used in the drivingwheels of 18 wheelers so that shaftdimensions can be reduced)
I'm no bikepro but i think the reason this frame weighs what it does, is all due to durability specs. A planetary gearbox won't weigh much extra, especially when they can use the casing as a supporting part of the frame. Kind of like they do with modern motorcykleengines.
One can recharge using the drivetrain ;-)
;-)
In fact a general power system in the frame that taps the drivetrain would be great for frontlights
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Motorcycles uses chains because they're (1) inexpensive, (2) lightweight, (3) lowest unsprung weight, (4) compact and narrow, (5) immune to the 'shaft jacking' (rear end rises and falls due to torque on the rear hub), (5) able to handle lots of power (ZX-12 anyone?), (6) directly compatable with transverse engine layout and finally (7) they're highly efficient when properly cared for.
Some motorcycles use shafts because (1) they're somewhat lower maintenance than chains. That's the sole reason. Yes, there have been some performance improvements in shafties (Paralever for example) but they still find use primarily on models targeted to riders who aren't so concerned about weight and cost and put a premium on maintenance (yes, that'd be you propeller-heads and Gold Wingers.)
And even then I'd argue the maintenance point: an O-ring chain sprayed every 600-1000 miles with a good lube like Maxima Chain Wax will give trouble-free service for a long time. My literbike's chain and sprockets lasted 30,000 miles with this sort of care. Cost of a new chain and sprocket set? About $185, and a half hour to change them out.
Oh yeah, there's belt drive too. S'ok if you don't mind the extra half-inch or so it adds to the width of the drivetrain, not to mention the limited power that realistic belt widths can handle. Also, don't get gravel in one, it'll mess up the sprockets if not damage the belt (I haven't priced belts and sprockets but I bet they're a lot more than a chain set.) However, they don't tend to stretch and need only a little shot of silicone once in a while.
- dvd_tude
As for transmission bikes, the old three-speed bikes had that decades ago. There was even a Borg-Warner 2-speed automatic tranmission for bikes.
Berg makes flexible plastic chain, and at one time they tried selling a version for bikes. It turned out to have compatibility problems with existing sprockets, but it could work with a sprocket redesign. Berg chain was used on the Gossamer Condor ultralight; it's lighter than steel chain. So that's something with potential.
Though it was intially reported by those on the scene that a helmet would have potentially saved his life, it was revealed at autopsy that the cause of death was basal skull fracture, very likely the result of a faceplant, sudden deceleration of the head and neck or whiplash-type injury - a convention bicycle helmet would not have helped.
As is nearly always the case when bicyle helmets are discussed, emotion trumps logic.
as a fairly avid mt. biker I don't like the looks of this at all. It (as others have pointed out) looks like a pain in the arse to fix should it go wrong on the trail, seems like it will get all mucked up inside with pretty much no good way to clean it out. and the shifting hubs alway pretty much well SUCK.
/when something goes wrong 20 miles out in the woods.
this thing seems to be yet another solution looking for a problem?
I'd way rather have the chanin and derailers at easy reach if
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
Actually, it's because none of you fucking cagers know how to drive. The fact that you're not aware of this fact is a sure sign that you never have ridden a bike for a serious amount of time.
A german company Rohloff, has been making an internally geared 14 speed transmission for bikes for few years now. The gearing range on it is equivalent to a standard Shimano 27 speed triple chainring system. The only problems with these things is maintenance issues and the cost. I beleive if you had any problems with the Rohloff system, it had to go back to Germany for repair, apparently these things are pretty complicated. The other drawback is price, I believ the Rohloff rear hub/transmission was alot heavier than a standard setup. On downhill/freeride bikes, it may not be an issue, but for cross county/trail bikes it is a real big issue. BTW, mountain bikes can be a very expensive hobby. My downhill bike alone costs ~$3500 US and my Cross Country bike close to that.
Sorry to pick on you but the fact that you are chronically destroying helmets may be a good argument for you to wear a helmet but is not enough to prescribe a universal need. People both inside and outside the US (the Europeans sometimes call helmets the "American Obsession") have been riding bicycles to get where they are going for over 100 years and they have not been dropping like flies, regardless of what the fear mongers would have us all believe.
Despite common knowledge to the contrary, cycling properly on the road just isn't that dangerous relative to other ways of getting around.
As anyone who has followed the Helmet Wars in Usenet knows, the rate of fatalities due to head injury while cycling is similar to that of motorists (per hour it is less, per mile it is more) while the motorist FHI numbers are about 50 times that of cyclists - which deflates the 'cost to the system' argument for helmet compulsion quickly. Pedestrians who walk near traffic fare even worse per hour than either of the above groups. Yet nobody even remotely considers wearing a helmet before crossing the street or climbing in the car even though their is a more sound basis for either of those groups than cyclists. Perceived risk is often very different from actual risk and these decisions are often based on emotions rather than logic.
Whole population studies done to compare injury and fatality rates before and after the implementation of Manditory Helmet Laws (Australia being the basis of much of the study) has shown no long term benefit to these laws. One study pointed out that cyclist head injuries had dropped about 35% but failed to mention that the number of cyclists had decreased slightly more which indicated an increased rate of head injury. Such duplicity is the norm - helmet laws are still being lobbied for with the false "85%" figure which even the authors of the 15 year old study have abandoned.
Promotion of bicycle helmets has done two things: First, it has completely and utterly connected Cycling and Head Injury/Death in nearly eveyone's mind (this site being lots of evidence in itself!); parents are afraid to let their children ride anymore even though cycling is statistically safer than it was 20 years ago - rather they let their children safely get fat while being raised by a TV.
The second effect is that helmet manufacturers make oodles of money even though they are shrinking their customer base thorough their vile anti-cycling marketing tactics.
Bicycle helmets are excellent proof that marketing works and that emotional hysteria is the best way to get laws changed.
I certainly don't want a generator on my road bike. Those have magnets and coils, which are heavy.
I could deal with it on my mountain bike, which I take on night rides, but I don't want extra weight on my racing bike.
When the bicycle was a standard means of transport in Britain during the 1930s/40s/50s the normal and preferred gearing was the Sturmey-Archer internal hub gear. Normally 3-speed, but 4 & 5 speed versions existed. "Upmarket" bikes had a "oil-bath" enclosed chain. These were, of course, "sit-up-and-beg" bikes rather than "sports" types ... intended for an easy and comfortable alternative to walking rather than speed.
that you no longer have a 95-98% efficent chain drive mechanism with changeable ratios but either a single speed or planetary gears. Internal hubs are less efficent and heavier; major barriers on such a low power vehicle.
Motorcycles successfully use shaft drive because they are a high power, low torque application. Bicycles are low power but high torque - the required shaft and frame would add considerable weight and expense.
Like elliptical chainrings it has been tried several times in the past 100 years and the benefits simply aren't enough to outweigh the disadvantages in most applications.
This mean, among other things, that shifting gets harder when you are putting a grater load through the chain... which is often when you most want to change gear!
Nevertheless, this is how front derailleurs work - they crudely shove a tensioned chain around from one chainring to another. It's not elegant and even with recent improvements in the shape of chainring and sprocket teeth to make it easier to move the chain between them, it sometimes works poorly.
I would disagree. Weight is only important when you are climbing or accelerating. The reason this sort fo thing never catches on is a well maintained chain is something like 99% efficient in transfering the power from your legs to the rear wheel. Hub gears and the like are something like 90%, and even worse at either end of the gear range. The weight hurts you on the climbs, and in the jump for the spint. The 10+ percent effiency hit hurts you in every pedal stroke.
If, say, the current setup was 90% efficent and the new stuff was 99% efficent but heavier, it would be worth the trade off in everything except climbing stages. Doing 10% less work in a flat stage would be a huge advantage.
I recall the internal chain/gear thing making a brief appearance about the same time as elliptical gears, in the early '90's. It sucked. Dirt or road, who wants to be caught 50 miles from home and unable to fix that chain or gear problem? Or clean the crap out of the chain? And there WILL be problems sooner or later you'll have to fix on the roadside.
Planetary gear "automatic shifting" systems also are an occasional, though thankfully short-lived, phenomenon. Again, they're too complex, generally too finicky, and usually too heavy to cut it. People don't generate the kind of power necessary to make use of automatic shifts - rapidly changing road/trail conditions also make manual shifting your best option. Also, cyclists like to change their gearing for different situations. That's easy to do with a modern cog set. Makes it fairly easy to deal with a broken/worn gear out in the boonies.
Someone in a reply asked about driveshafts, and the old elliptical chainrings. Exposed chains, for all their apparent problems, are simple, easy to maintain, and fairly easy to fix out on the road- or trail-side. A big double-opposed cylinder BMW with a shaft-drive is a damn smooth moto, but it's got plenty of horsepower to run through that drive train, and turn that heavy shaft. The best sprinters (bicycle) can peak at something approaching 1 hp, very briefly, as I recall. Most of us max out at considerably less...
Also, bicycle gears are on the rear wheel; motorcycles, like cars, have a gear box up front. A different beast altogether.
There was a brief fad for elliptical chainrings in the early '90's, IIRC. Shimano "Biopace" or some such? I was stuck with them on a bike once. They sucked. The idea was that people pedalled by pushing more-or-less straight down with each leg, alternating, so the shape would focus their power to match. This is called "pedaling squares," and is a poor way to pedal.
The most efficient way to pedal is in circles. Each leg pushes down following the arc of a circle, and also pulls up the back of the stroke. Obviously this won't work on your department store bike - it requires you be clipped into your pedals. It even worked in with cleats and straps, back in the "old days" before Lemond converted everyone to click-in pedals.
The reason basic bike tech evolves relatively slowly is that simple stuff survives, with incremental refinements. The tricky crap doesn't. That's why I'll bet that anyone who rides will be able to demonstrate (not just opine) that this latest incarnation of worn-out gimmicks will, also, suck. They see gimmick after gimmick, few of which actually improve their riding experience, and most of which cost 'em big.
Note: before I get flamed about all these roadside fixes I mention being impractical, I've done 'em all, many times, on both road and trail. Gears, chains, popped spokes, the lot. Even exploded a chain powering through an intersection, with my baby on board. If I can hack it, anyone can.
The dormant roadie,
Mal the Elder
Take those good downhillers to Northstar, and they'll all rip off their short cage 105 or Ultegra derailleurs, I promise.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
Both places that you used apostrofees in, you should'nt of.
How exactly would you steer with a 2 wheel drive bike?
A flat tire takes 5-10 minutes to fix, and the only equipment you need to fix it is a patch, some glue, a few spanners, and a pump. It is an easy skill to learn, and a useful one to have, especially when you are dealing with recurring flat tire problems ;-)
I have good news for you, oh whiny one!
... Yes there are Kevlar tires that are as thin as your thumb and cost $200, hold 100 PSI air pressure, and rarely go flat, but they don't count.
:)
1) Tires that don't go flat!
I have kevlar tires that cost about $30 each and I run them at 60 psi. Try your local bike store!
2) Something to keep the rain and road dirt from putting a big skunk stripe up our backs when riding in wet climates. There are fenders, but they don't work well.
Mine work well. I generally only see the skunk stripe on people too cool to put on a proper fender.
3) The ability to fold the frame so that it can fit in the back of a small car or on the bus.
Now, I don't even _believe_ you've never seen a folding bike. The best ones are good for even long tours.
4) Brakes that work in the rain.
Disc brakes. Not that I use them myself, but they work in the rain. So do good rim brakes with the right rims. Again, your local bike store can help you.
5) Tires that don't go flat. So important, I'm saying it twice.
Yes, I use kevlar tires all the time now. Cheap, and totally worth the small extra weight. I hardly even bother to take a spare tube any more. Get some. It's easy: stop pretending to know about bikes, go to your Local Bike Store, and let them help you.
One other thing:
In fact, I HATE bicycle helmets. Their sole purpose is to show all the people driving around that the person on the bike is middle class
Noooooo, their sole purpose is to prevent your skull from splitting open, an important job if you frequently encounter trees and/or trucks while armed only with a bicycle. People who are _very_ insecure about image sometimes fail to realize this
Now go to the bike store and ask them about these things -- and (if you actually do cycle) remember to pick up a helmet on the way out.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
These drive systems are certainly interesting examples of progessing technology, but they don't quite measure up to this bicycle tech.
In these times when bicycle Nirvana seems to be as many gears as possible or as hitech gear mechanism as possible I just *have* to post a link something that is the opposite and quite lotech, singlespeed: Singlespeed
I converted about a year ago, I'm on my second singlespeed now (the first one got stolen, wonder if the thiefs were surprised when they came to theur safehouse, or whatever, and discovered that they had stolen a MTB without gears...) and I absolutely will not go back.
I'd paste a link to my own homepage where you can read about my own conversion, but I don't want to risk it being slashdotted. You will probably find it on google (search for singlespeed + muuwiki if you are really interested).
Wot ho, Sturmey-Archer! I had a hub-geared one in the 80's, are they still made? I think the main problem with them is that they were hell to adjust, and the little chain in the middle that changed gear always came loose.
The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
What about a front wheel shaft drive or two-wheel shaft drive for mountain bikes and bicycling on slick surfaces. With a properly designed shaft drive (counterrotating shafts in the front fork), you could deliver torque to the front wheels as well as the back. It may not be "efficient" (if you really want exercise, why worry about efficiency) but it would improve traction.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I'm a cyclist as well, and I seem to recall reading about how the chain drivetrain is about 95% efficient. If this is true, there is no way that anyone is losing 100w of power in normal riding due to friction in the drivetrain.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
when you grow up you may understand what a helmet's for.
Bikes without freewheels and only one brake on the front tend to have "a Darwinian selection" against them, too. Track bikes don't have any brakes at all.
Hmmm. I weight is not an object and efficiency is not paramount, why not have a hub above the rear brake on the left side and a fixed chain to the hub on the right? You'd need a custom frame but most of the setup could be made from stock parts. It'd also get most of the chain further from the dirt.
Of course, you might end up with oil smudges on the inside of left leg.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not being the elite roady or anything like that but I bought a luxury bike for myself this year, a Fondriest Topcarbon F1, loaded, Cinelli ram, Campy Record with carbon crank (the .com boom was good to me...;-) That, my friends, is innovation in bicycling, it's simply the most amazing ride I've ever experienced. It can't be raced in UCI events becuase it's too light. This 40lbs monster DH stuff is kind of interesting, but hardly innovative. I remember a bannana seat schwin with internal 3 speed gearing back in the 1970s.. I think some of the Dyno and Bianchi cruisers have those too.
This is pretty cool. My latest aquisition was an older GT Backwoods frame customly equiped with cool stuff (back in 1998). I like it so much that I even refused to install any electronic device on it (including lights). This sounds pretty cool. First of all it should require lower maintainaince. Secondly, if you fall you won't break any parts of your bike. Gear changer comes to mind, because I broke many of those. It looks like you'd rather break yourself than break one of these bikes. I just wonder about mainainance. How would you replace the chain for instance? It's a know fact that chains lenghten.
When I 1st commented, I hadn't done any reading on the subject, so obviously, my numbers were inaccurate. However, that doesn't mean the sentiment & overall emphasis is troll-like.
When I said the things that I said, I really meant well. I'm just trying to advocate what I consider to be better technology. I would be disappointed if nobody moderated this up, but I would be even more upset if somebody moderated it down. In other words, the down moderation isn't worth it or fair.
Take care...
Yep, they're still made. My town bike has one, and it's a cinch to service and setup if you just read the tech manual. I'd say more reliable than derailers, and last a hell of a lot longer. I've dated the hub in this at 1963, the teeth, chain and mechs on my MTBs have been lucky to last more than a few years.
I've ridden 10s of thousands of miles
As have I.
I'm here to say that a bicycle helmet is an absolute necessity, period.
And I'm here to tell you that you're 100% wrong. It's only a necessity if you can't stay upright.
I've completely destroyed two helmets and scraped several more.
Perhaps you need to work on your motor skills. The last time I took a spill was when I was 7.
It's funny.. in Edmonton (where I live) last year, there was a doctor who was riding his bicyle across the high level bridge - for some reason (nobody knows) he hit a steel girder and died.
Now, all of the pro-helmet morons are saying "this is proof that we need mandatory helmet laws!"
OK, so let's put this in perspective: people have been riding bicyles in this town for over 100 years. In those 100 years, ONE person has an accident, and now everybody has to wear bicyle helments?
<sarcasm>
Gee, I'm glad nobody is overreacting.
</sarcasm>
As a guy who part-times at bike shops as a wrench, and who plans on getting out of IT and opening his own shop in the near future, I feel the need to reply to this. (You can also refer to my letter from Wired 8.06, if you want the short version.
Bicycle technology has remained largely the same because it works and works well. The bike, in its current form, is one of the best most effecient devices for turning human work into motion. Bicycle racing has been a professional sport for over a century, and in that time, we've seen a wide range of experimental drivetrains, wheels, frames -- hell, you name the component, someone's tried to build a better one.
The point is, very few of these things manage to exceed the quality/performance of the items they're trying to replace. In fact, the only thing I can think of in the last ten years that's been a "radical departure" from the norm, is paired-spoke wheels, and even those are not a "radical departure", as someone just looked at the lacing/drilling pattern of the spokes and how they go from the hub to the rim.
There's a few other factors involved, too -- 1.) price -- cycling is a painfully expensive sport (ask me about the $6500 bike I want to build this year) and these new attempts at technology have to come cheap, or no one will buy them. This is why you don't see a lot of bikes with automatic transmissions on them -- the Bianchi AutoMilano is one of these, but it costs $300 more than a Milano with grip-shifters. And has fewer gears. Where's the price benefit in that?
2.) Can the home mechanic work on it easily? No hardcore cyclist will buy a bike that's a total pain in the ass to work on. I want to be able to come home from my ride, throw my bike up in the workstand and tweak the shifting across my range of gears without having to use more than a phillips-head screwdriver. A gearing system inside the bottom bracket (what they're describing) doesn't allow for that. And it's right out.
3.) The shop factor. No bike shop wants to invest in unproven or "fringe" technologies because of the inventory issue. A local shop a few years ago invested heavily in Softride bikes, which are popular in the triathalon circuit, and had a few converts on mountain bikes -- mostly people who had bad backs or couldn't afford a true rear-suspension bike. He bought tons of these things, starting in 1996. That shop closed up recently and had a huge closeout sale. Tons of Softride bikes, some as old as 1996.
We're not Luddites in the bike world, though. My current bike (1999-2000) is nothing like my bike of 1989 -- the primary changes have been materials science changes. And my bike of 2009 will nothing like my bike of 1999.
blog |
Considering that this is a virtual room of geeks (a group that lives, and dies by their minds). Why would anyone take such an unnecessary risk, all for the sake of vanity (mess up your hair, not look cool), or misplaced rebellion against authority (I don't like people telling me what to do)?
This looks like yet another "ooh, wow" gimmick. Shifting is virtually impossible to screw up with a properly adjusted high-end system (Shimano Ultegra / Dura-Ace or XT / XTR, depending on your preference of terrain *grin*).
In addition, that thing looks god-awful HEAVY. Heavy = bad.
-- n
True, while going downhill the efficiency of the drivetrain isn't that big a deal... but how do you get to the top of the hill? Sure, if you're a racer, a weekend warrior at Whistler (riding the chair lift), or maybe your local hills are car-drop friendly you don't need to worry about how you get up the hill. For the rest, who actually ride up the hill, drive train efficiency is a big deal.
People already bitch about riding (or pushing) their 50lb+ DH bike up the hill, now you want to add more weight and reduce the drive train efficiency? Even on the Shore I often go a year or two before replacing a derailer. Get me better brakes, forks, and a more reliable rear triangle pivot, that's the expensive stuff I keep having to replace.
the thing that is cool (and rare) about working on bicycles is that there are basic standards, just like with desktop computers. you can pull pedals off one bike, wheels off another, and a fork off another and they are likely to all work together. of course, this is not 100%, but the parts are a lot more stnadard than, say, on a car or motorcycle where each model has its own parts design and there is little interchangability. this makes tikering with bikes lots of fun.
without a standard, nobody's going to want to make or buy a bike with a specialized drive train for which parts will soon become unavailable. just like you wouldn't buy a computer with a proprietary disk interface (unless you had some special need).
There are no trolls. There are no trees out here.
I was confused about this at first, until someone pointed out that this is for downhillers. Those guys are not reliant on pedaling, and more weight is better if you are on gravity drive. They also often wear hard plastic motocross body armor, too. Weight is not a big consideration.
To me, this is not cycling. To qualify, at some point you must pedal UP a hill to be cycling.
Now, as to your choice of overpriced drivetrain, I have one word for you - SUNTOUR, BABY!!Yes my commuter sled (Lotus) still soldiers on after 18 years with the original Suntour 12-speed setup. Had to change the chain, tho.
Upright "traditional" bikes are fine for say, barreling down a ski run at speeds that would make Dan Gurney cringe, or for riding a half pipe at the Tony Hawk huckjam, but for road use, they're far inferior to recumbent bikes. I'll give you two reasons why right off the bat: much lower CD (aerodynamic resistance), and superior ergonomics. Upright bikes put undue pressure on wrists, backs, and a rather tender portion of the posterior, whereas recumbents are nearly as comfortable as your living room chair. The aerodynamic advantage is a no-brainer. It's the lower frontal area, stupid! Not to mention lower CG, lower height to fall in a crash, and downright geek coolness. i.e. http://www.optima-cycles.nl/eng/2.htm
Only the Saeco domestiques were testing them. They still have bugs that no team leader would dare run "in production."
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Drawbacks of the internal gear-train tended to be increased friction -> less efficiency of converting rider's power-input to forward motion.
We have tires that don't go flat... or at least rarely go flat. It's called UST tubeless tires/rims (they work like car tires) or you can get the same thing with a $60 Stan's No-Tubes kit and regular tires and rims. For that matter, you can come up with your own recipie with $10 of materials from the hardware store and information from the internet. Tubeless also saves weight and rolling resistance. they are quite popular with the mountain bikers, and Stan is developing a roadie version as we spew. If you do manage to get a flat in the field (tire sidewall tear, large stick impailed your tire, etc), you just install an innertube and ride home.
We also have brakes that work in the rain, Discs. I particularly like the Avid mechanical brakes. Downside is that you have to have a frame and hubs that are disc brake ready, but almost every mountain bike built today has a disc ready frame.
As far as the helmets go, I feel that if you ride your bike without one, you are seriously asking to spend the rest of your live as a vegetable. Nearly all the cycling deaths in the US can be avoided if the rider wore a frickin helmet. I have not had a wreck that cracked a helmet in half, but most of my friends have, and most have walked away with a 'Wow, that was a nasty spill... I suppose I need a new helmet!'
As far as the internal gearing goes, it's pretty ready for prime time. I have friends that have been using the Rolhoff 14 speed internal gear hubs for a year or more, and they are rock solid, if a pound heavier than derailers. OTOH, those are the guys who keep on riding through muddy nasty conditions, when everybody else has to stop to dump chainlube on their drivetrains to remedy chainsuck, (when the chain sticks to the chainrings and gets wedged in the frame).
So internals have more weight, more expense, but you loose the derailer system and gain reliability.
40lbs is pretty heavy for a hard tail - even a freeride/downhill/dirt jumping/street hardtail. The other thing is that the box housing's quite a big lump to be a prerequisite at the crank area, where you often have a lot of pivots and so on happening on a full suspension bike. Then again, it could reduce the need for gusseting around the BB by allowing for bigger tubes with less heat stress. But my money say it won't take off.
http://bb.nsmb.com/newforum/index.php
This is were the people who would use it / and make it hang out. (my other haunt)I ride the North Shore, and have a "nice light bike" at 35Lbs (Kona Stinky De-Lux). North Vancouver is the testing ground for a lot of new tech in the bike industry, and most of the reasons everyone is saying it won't work just don't apply here. The main consumer is teen age kids who get Mom and Dad to buy stuff for them. A 14 year old riding a 6000 - 8000 dollar bike is common place. Parents drive the kids to the top of the mountain, and pick them up at the bottom. And derailers get ripped off all the time. Hell, You could sell 100's to kids just to show up their freinds. And then there is Whistler, 100's of KM of downhill riding with huge table tops and drops this is where this will be at home at. If it brake, you coast to the bottom, and get the shop to fix it. Lots of people ride at Whistler with out a chain, and with the derailer zap straped to the chain stay to protect it. I would love one, but I don't ride well enough to justify the expence. (beside that I haven't been able to ride for 3 months due to the fact I broke my hip augering off a table top on the biker-X course)
Then you'd have to be intelligent rather than foolhardy in order to reach the finish at all.
But then route-planning is probably beyond the capability of the average downhiller, coming as they do from the milieu of the dope-addled snowboarders, BMX knobheads and skateboard queens.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
I've been saved from serious head injury by a helmet at least once, and I'm damn glad I was wearing one.
The parent poster made comments to the effect that in the USA, only people with $$$ (~$100!?!) can afford them.
In Australia, we have mandatory bicycle helmet laws, and all helmets must be certified to the national standard.
A side-effect of the resulting increase in demand for helmets (albeit artificially created) has been a larger market, and more competition. Here I can buy a decent-quality, comfortable and lightweight helmet less than US$30 equiv; and such an item has already saved my head.
"Despite common knowledge to the contrary, cycling properly on the road just isn't that dangerous relative to other ways of getting around."
"Bicycle helmets are excellent proof that marketing works and that emotional hysteria is the best way to get laws changed."
Two quick points, one is that "accidents" are called that because there was a moment when you did not have control over the situation. That's when either you lost control, or somebody else caused you to lose control (like the yellow cab that collapsed your rear wheel, or side-swiped you without noticing your existence.)
So long as you believe that while riding you have 100% control over the situation (esp. in the city), you are endangering yourself and others. Unfortunately, Darwinism checks in and removes from action those who do not take bicycle safety seriously!
Quick example: while riding westbound on 14th Street, a car hooks a left U-turn from a parking spot, just as I'm passing. Going about 20mph, my bike and I had no time and little choice but to follow the trajectory decided by my momentum, and collide with the vehical's front-left fender, whilst I flew head-first over the hood and onto the pavement.
Without a helmet, skull fractures possibly? With helmet, I had a sprained ankle, fucked-up cervical ligaments and scrapes. Oh, and, one seriously dented hi-tech helmet.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
I've got to wonder just how significant that loss is compared to sticking a suspension system on a bicycle.
I am.
if you have to ask, then you wouldn't get it anyway.
We just had a member of our bicycle club get killed when he blew his front tire on a fast decent. He went over the bars and landed on his head with his wife following behind.
.
.
Go ahead and tell me again how helmets are just a status symbol.
.
.
You clearly don't ride (at least not for fitness), don't presume to tell me what is and is not necessary safety equipment.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
People think nothing about spending $100.00 for a decent pair of tennis shoes. Why is it that spending a similar amount to protect your skull is considered a "Yuppie" status symbol?
.
.
You really need to restrict your post to things you actually have some knowledge about.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
OK, so I'm an "Old Guy"(TM) - but over the years I've now lost three good friends to helmet-less head injury (and a couple of others to head/body trauma suffered even though wearing protective gear).
... not that anybody will ever read this - how did I ever get sucked into another helmet debate...?
One friend was to a skiing accident (college buddy).
One was to a very slow speed motorcycle accident.
One was to a bicycle accident (at least we think so as he was found next to his bicycle alongside the road badly concussed - died two days later).
I have to think that at least one of my friends would still be walking around if they'd been wearing a helmet.
After the skiing-related death, yeah, I turned into a (at least sort of) "yuppie mom" and tried very hard to get my friends to wear helmets.
At least the last one I lost knew they were taking a risk (the other one usually wore a helmet - freak parking lot accident).
Losing friends sucks.
Would I make everyone wear helmets? Well...no. I don't even wear one all the time myself (particularly on foot-driven scooters). But I understand where those "yuppie moms" are coming from.
Bob
PS: re: this argument the pro-helmet-law folks use - the one of "societal cost".
I have one data point - two days in the ER is more expensive than a funeral (even a lavish one with fancy casket).
If the deraillieur were the problem, you could just go with an internally geared hub. That problem was solved, oh, 70 years ago?
One study pointed out that cyclist head injuries had dropped about 35% but failed to mention that the number of cyclists had decreased slightly more which indicated an increased rate of head injury.
You should compare the fatality rate instead. Possibly the head injury rate just 'shifted' a bit, but fewer people died and more people received no injury.
Personally, I think that only people with nothing to protect fail to wear a helmet. Maybe helmet use shouldn't be mandated, but are you willing to equate failure to wear a helmet with being kicked out of the hospital because your health care is used up?
Six months ago I bought a bicycle. The chain was inside a sheet-metal shell. When it came off the front gear, I learned that I could open the maintenance hole and got it back on again. When it came off the rear gear I spent two hours ripping the sheet metal off with my pliers. Now the chain is exposed, just like all the other bicycle chains I've ever had, so that I can get at it when it fails. Chain off sproket: the sheet metal cover turned a ten second fix into a major repair. If you put the chain inside the frame that chain/sprocket system had better be 100% reliable, not 99.99 percent!
> Sturmey-Archer! I had a hub-geared one in the 80's, are they still made?
Yes - but SA went bust and are now being made by Sun Race (www.sturmey-archer.com). SRAM and Shimano also make "normal" hub gears (ie not the v. expensive Rohloffs)
These are the figures for adult cyclist hospital admissions in New Zealand not involving motor vehicles, the figures which might be expected to show exactly the change predicted by helmet advocates. No motor vehicle is involved, so these crashes are theoretically at least within the envelope of the design performance of helmets.
Year..Head..Limb..Total.%Head.%change1990..127...91....218...58.3
1991..107...98....205...52.2..-6.1
1992..95....89....184...51.6..-0.6
1993..120...127...247...48.6..-3.0
1994..101...117...218...46.3..-2.3
1995..93....112...205...45.4..-0.9
1996..87....113...200...43.5..-1.9
Using your skill and judgement, spot the year where helmet wearing rates increased from 43% to over 90%.
Remember when checking the figures, Liddites claim that helmets save 85% of head injuries. So, given that wearing rates roughly doubled, the ratio of head to other injuries should see a massive step change the year compulsion was introduced, right? OK, spot the year, it's in the list above.
Nobody believes in risk compensation. That's why it happens.
The unfortunate thing about polystyrene foam deflector beanies is that for all the "proof" their advocates advance, populations where usage rates are highest remain the ones where cyclist injury rates are highest, and the safest cycling countries have helmet wearing rates so low that any helmeted cyclist outside a competition is usually a foreign visitor.
Me, I wear a helmet, and I don't expect it to save me from anything worse than road rash on the head. Helmets are designed to work in falls from your bike at speeds up to about 12mph. I ride at up to 40mph (daily) and if I crash it has so far always been because of some clueless cager. Check the manufacturers' disclaimer on your lid: where a motor vehicle is involved, all bets are off.
www.cyclehelmets.org.
.