Death to the derailleur

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Slack, Sep 9, 2006.

  1. Slack

    Slack Guest

    You know it's gonna be the future... eventually. Seems like I've been
    waiting for forever for them to come out and trickle down to xc bikes.
    But I have no doubt, sooner or later the derailleur, as we now know it,
    will be history.

    Just scroll thru and checkout the pretty pictures:
    http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97295
     
    Tags:


  2. Slack

    Slack Guest

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per Slack:
    >> Just scroll thru and checkout the pretty pictures:
    >> http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97295

    >
    > They look even heavier than Rohloff's product.



    That's what I was thinking, too, as I looked at them. It's not a big
    deal [for me] DH-wise, but they will have to come up with some lighter
    version for it to be truly marketable to the xc crowd.

    Well, we can dream anyway.
     
  3. > >> http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97295
    > >
    > > They look even heavier than Rohloff's product.

    >
    >
    > That's what I was thinking, too, as I looked at them. It's not a big
    > deal [for me] DH-wise, but they will have to come up with some lighter
    > version for it to be truly marketable to the xc crowd.
    >
    > Well, we can dream anyway.


    http://www.bikemagic.com/news/article/mps/UAN/5052/v/1/sp/"

    I'll have to buy a new bike from the ground up next year. Seriously
    looking at a 29er Rohloff equipped hardtail, but we'll see.
     
  4. Slack wrote:
    > You know it's gonna be the future... eventually. Seems like I've been
    > waiting for forever for them to come out and trickle down to xc bikes.
    > But I have no doubt, sooner or later the derailleur, as we now know it,
    > will be history.
    >
    > Just scroll thru and checkout the pretty pictures:
    > http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97295Heavy Metal for DH. But what about an HT?
     
  5. Per tracksterman1967@yahoo.co.uk:
    >I'll have to buy a new bike from the ground up next year. Seriously
    >looking at a 29er Rohloff equipped hardtail,


    What would the advantage be over a regular wheel-style Rohloff setup?

    Something about balance? Unsprung weight?
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  6. Slack

    Slack Guest

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per tracksterman1967@yahoo.co.uk:
    >> I'll have to buy a new bike from the ground up next year. Seriously
    >> looking at a 29er Rohloff equipped hardtail,

    >
    > What would the advantage be over a regular wheel-style Rohloff setup?
    >
    > Something about balance? Unsprung weight?




    Yes, both of those. Arguably, perhaps ideally, weight distributed
    evenly, and on the lower half of the bike would the best situation. But,
    if you are going to locate a large portion of the weight in one area,
    placing it as close as possible between your feet would be my
    preference. I think placing the majority of weight between your feet is
    actually better than low and evenly distributed (horizontally).
    ____
    Slack
     
  7. Slack

    Slack Guest

    crazy6r54@webtv.net wrote:
    > Slack wrote:
    >> You know it's gonna be the future... eventually. Seems like I've been
    >> waiting for forever for them to come out and trickle down to xc bikes.
    >> But I have no doubt, sooner or later the derailleur, as we now know it,
    >> will be history.
    >>
    >> Just scroll thru and checkout the pretty pictures:
    >> http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97295Heavy



    Metal for DH. But what about an HT?


    http://www.evil-bikes.com/structures_2013.htm
    ____
    Slack
     
  8. CowPunk

    CowPunk Guest

  9. Bill S

    Bill S Guest

    CowPunk wrote:
    > Slack wrote:
    >
    >>You know it's gonna be the future... eventually. Seems like I've been
    >>waiting for forever for them to come out and trickle down to xc bikes.
    >>But I have no doubt, sooner or later the derailleur, as we now know it,
    >>will be history.
    >>
    >>Just scroll thru and checkout the pretty pictures:
    >>http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97295

    >
    >
    > Looks like overcomplicated crap.
    > Hydrostatic drives are the next step.
    > http://www.powerengine.com/aitx001hydbiksum.htm
    >



    The real trend in bicycle technology is simplicity. 27
    speed to 1 speed. The next step is getting rid of the
    pedals and pushing along the ground with your feet, circa 1817.
     
  10. > >> I'll have to buy a new bike from the ground up next year. Seriously
    > >> looking at a 29er Rohloff equipped hardtail,

    > >
    > > What would the advantage be over a regular wheel-style Rohloff setup?
    > > Something about balance? Unsprung weight?

    >


    The two are unrelated, for me at least.

    The Rohloff addresses drievtrain wear issues on long trips - didn't you
    have one yourself?

    The 29er aspect - well, I want to get things down to just one bike. So,
    an MTB that, when fitted with rigid forks and skinny touring tyres,
    makes a fast, comfy mile muncher. I was impressed with the way my 700cc
    bike rolled through the rough stuff this summer:
    http://petejones.fotopic.net/p33022551.html, and people who are
    actually riding 29ers seem to like them, so I figure I'll give one a
    whirl.
     
  11. Per tracksterman1967@yahoo.co.uk:
    >The Rohloff addresses drievtrain wear issues on long trips - didn't you
    >have one yourself?


    Wound up with two of them... and I'm never going back.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  12. (PeteCresswell) wrote:

    > >The Rohloff addresses drievtrain wear issues on long trips - didn't you
    > >have one yourself?

    >
    > Wound up with two of them... and I'm never going back.


    Thought you liked them. I was just caught out by your comment about the
    weight of the Rohloffs, sounding negative. I still have reservations
    (mainly the noise, TBH, but also weight distribution rather than
    absolute weight per se), but think that's the way I'll go.

    Pete
     
  13. MattB

    MattB Guest

    Bill S wrote:
    > CowPunk wrote:
    >
    >> Slack wrote:
    >>
    >>> You know it's gonna be the future... eventually. Seems like I've been
    >>> waiting for forever for them to come out and trickle down to xc bikes.
    >>> But I have no doubt, sooner or later the derailleur, as we now know it,
    >>> will be history.
    >>>
    >>> Just scroll thru and checkout the pretty pictures:
    >>> http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97295

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Looks like overcomplicated crap.
    >> Hydrostatic drives are the next step.
    >> http://www.powerengine.com/aitx001hydbiksum.htm
    >>

    >
    >
    > The real trend in bicycle technology is simplicity. 27 speed to 1
    > speed. The next step is getting rid of the pedals and pushing along the
    > ground with your feet, circa 1817.


    Next I want to build up a sweet velocipede!

    Matt
     
  14. Per tracksterman1967@yahoo.co.uk:
    >> Wound up with two of them... and I'm never going back.

    >
    >Thought you liked them. I was just caught out by your comment about the
    >weight of the Rohloffs, sounding negative. I still have reservations
    >(mainly the noise, TBH, but also weight distribution rather than
    >absolute weight per se), but think that's the way I'll go.


    My stock spiel is that they're heavy, noisy, less efficient, ungodly expensive;
    I recently bought my second one; and I don't ever want to ride with anything
    else.

    To break it down:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) The weight for me is moot. A Rohloff replacing a SRAM 9.0 der system
    adds almost exactly 2 pounds to the bike.

    A guy who races once told me that the extra two pounds would make him
    non-competitive on the hills.

    But I weigh 220; I'm a pathetic rider; I'm in no hurry; and 2 pounds
    is a really small percent of my body weight.


    2) The noise diminishes after the first thousand or so miles and you get
    used to what remains. Also the noise is concentrated in gears 1-7.
    8-14 are almost silent.


    3) I've seen a couple of technical studies on efficiency. What I take away from
    them is that real-life comparison is difficult. Chain angles, cleanliness of
    the system, lubrication... and so-forth.

    The diff differs depending on gear. The max diff is something on the order of
    one or two percent in a few of the gears against a virgin, perfectly-clean,
    perfectly-adjusted high-end der setup.

    I think gear 11 is direct drive. Partially by design and partially by
    chance, I've geared one of my bikes so that 11 matches my flat/paved
    cruising speed.


    4) As far as the expense goes, I can't say much - except that I spend quite a
    bit of time on my bikes and a couple hundred bucks either way gets amortized.
    Geeze, I just spend over a grand on a little electrical generator to keep
    the contents of the freezer/fridge from spoiling and to let me do some work
    during power failures. This thing is going to get used how often? Maybe
    twice a year for a couple of days?

    Also, nobody lives forever and I don't want my kids to have *too* much fun
    with my hard-earned cash.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    For the kind of trekking that I've seen on the TracksterMan web site, it seems
    like an internally-geared hub might be a good fit.

    The plus side is that it doesn't seem to me like they break down. Personally,
    I'd put a new set of shifter cables on it before a big trip.

    OTOH, I've never broken a shifter cable... although I've replaced a couple that
    were getting frayed down inside the little box that attaches to the hub.

    OTOOH, if a cable were to break, you could still run different gears by just
    putting a 9mm wrench to the shifter interface bolt on the hub - as opposed to
    a der system where I'd guess you'd be stuck with one gear - or as many
    gears as were available by shifting the front rings.

    The minus side would be that if, for some unforeseen reason, there was a problem
    you wouldn't be replacing/fixing it with locally-available parts.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  15. J.D. Baldwin

    J.D. Baldwin Guest

    In the previous article, (PeteCresswell) <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
    > Also, nobody lives forever and I don't want my kids to have *too*
    > much fun with my hard-earned cash.


    A friend of mine came up with the best expression I've seen yet for
    that thought: "You can only fit so much money in a coffin."
    --
    _+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
    _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
    \ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
    ***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  16. Per (PeteCresswell):
    > Personally,
    >I'd put a new set of shifter cables on it before a big trip.


    And run them in for a couple of rides just to make sure I didn't do something
    stupid when installing them...
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  17. Per J.D. Baldwin:
    > "You can only fit so much money in a coffin."


    Keeper.

    Thanks.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  18. (PeteCresswell) wrote:

    > 1) The weight for me is moot. A Rohloff replacing a SRAM 9.0 der system
    > adds almost exactly 2 pounds to the bike.


    > But I weigh 220; I'm a pathetic rider; I'm in no hurry; and 2 pounds
    > is a really small percent of my body weight.


    Do you run them with the chain tensioners and torque arms? I'd be
    buying a specific frame that would eliminate this clutter.
     
  19. Per tracksterman1967@yahoo.co.uk:
    >Do you run them with the chain tensioners and torque arms? I'd be
    >buying a specific frame that would eliminate this clutter.


    On my FS I run it with a chain tensioner. It's ok, but the chain does drop
    sometimes - like when I go over a log or through some baby heads.

    On my hard tail I opted for Rohloff's adjustable rear dropouts. The rationale
    for choosing them over an eccentric BB shell is that the BB shell could eat into
    my fore-aft saddle adjustment. I've never dropped a chain using that setup.

    I did, however, have a frame made early in the game that used an eccentric BB
    shell. It was really elegant. Unfortunately, because I tried to tell the
    frame maker how to do his job, the frame came out way wrong and is just sitting
    in my garage.

    Elegant as the eccentric BB is, I'd still give the nod to Rohloff's adjustable
    dropouts because there can be an access issue if/when the chain tension needs
    adjusting with the eccentric BB: you need to remove a crank arm.

    OTOH, the dropout adjusters are alu - and I'd guess somebody could strip the
    threads out if they were too ham-handed in the adjustment. OTOOH, they're
    replaceable in the field.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...