Death to the derailleur



S

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
 
(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.
 
> >> 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.
 
Per [email protected]:
>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
 
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per [email protected]:
>> 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
 
[email protected] 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
 
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 ****.
> 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.
 
> >> 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.
 
Per [email protected]:
>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
 
(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
 
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 ****.
>> 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
 
Per [email protected]:
>> 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
 
In the previous article, (PeteCresswell) <[email protected]> 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
\ / [email protected]|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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
 
Per J.D. Baldwin:
> "You can only fit so much money in a coffin."


Keeper.

Thanks.
--
PeteCresswell
 
(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.
 
Per [email protected]:
>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
 

Similar threads