expensive road bikes fussy and unreliable?

[Wle]

i;ve seen it in here, "commuting on a racing bike is hard duty".

but, if you are not really pounding the pedals, it seems to me that the only hard thing is mileage.

my one way trip is 13 miles.

i have a couple of mid price road/race bikes.

a. 2002 fuji finest with sora group
b. 1996 or so gt edge with 600 group

what is about commuting that is supposed to be so hard?

it;s just miles.

i don;t weigh a lot.

what is it that is supposed to be wearing out?

i have had some spokes break on the fuji [alex rims da-22 i think] but overall, it seems fine after
5100 miles.

the gt, i have not ridden as much.

the important question though, is, if commuting is hard, and i don;t want to ride a bike over 22 lbs
with pedals, what to buy?

i don;t want it to break.

i don;t want to be replacing parts all the time.

i don;t want to be adjusting stuff all the time [the fuji and gt seem to need constant twiddling
with derailleurs, spokes/truing, brake cable tension, pedals, it;s always something].

but if you start spending over a certain amount, maybe 1000 or so, the focus starts being on weight
reduction, exclusively.

it seems reliability is not the main thing any more, over a certain price.

the assumption being that you would be 'racing' the bike and don;t mind fiddling with it, and it;s
ok if it only lasts 10000 miles before bearings, freewheels, chain rings, bottom brackets, wheels,
etc. [expensive stuff], start giving up.

i don;t think i want a 'touring bike', too heavy.

so, under 22 lbs, last at least 25,000 miles, don;t have to fiddle with it all the time,
what to get?

not that i would do it til my current bikes are still alive but still, it seems like a question no
one wants to answer..

wle.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

The primary issue with "commuting" is that you're typically taking the shorted route between two
points, rather than the most bikeworthy route. That's why it's often so hard on the bike... perhaps
poorer road surfaces, more traffic making it difficult to avoid hazards, and often doing so when
lighting isn't optimal.

For those reasons it's often a good idea to have a tougher bike, something with components that can
take some serious abuse and keep going. Probably not as fun to ride as your lightweight "racing"
bike, but more likely to survive the commute battle without damage.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"wle" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> i;ve seen it in here, "commuting on a racing bike is hard duty".
>
> but, if you are not really pounding the pedals, it seems to me that the only hard thing is
> mileage.
>
> my one way trip is 13 miles.
>
> i have a couple of mid price road/race bikes.
>
> a. 2002 fuji finest with sora group
> b. 1996 or so gt edge with 600 group
>
> what is about commuting that is supposed to be so hard?
>
> it;s just miles.
>
> i don;t weigh a lot.
>
> what is it that is supposed to be wearing out?
>
> i have had some spokes break on the fuji [alex rims da-22 i think] but overall, it seems fine
> after 5100 miles.
>
> the gt, i have not ridden as much.
>
> the important question though, is, if commuting is hard, and i don;t want to ride a bike over 22
> lbs with pedals, what to buy?
>
> i don;t want it to break.
>
> i don;t want to be replacing parts all the time.
>
> i don;t want to be adjusting stuff all the time [the fuji and gt seem to need constant twiddling
> with derailleurs, spokes/truing, brake cable tension, pedals, it;s always something].
>
> but if you start spending over a certain amount, maybe 1000 or so, the focus starts being on
> weight reduction, exclusively.
>
> it seems reliability is not the main thing any more, over a certain price.
>
> the assumption being that you would be 'racing' the bike and don;t mind fiddling with it, and it;s
> ok if it only lasts 10000 miles before bearings, freewheels, chain rings, bottom brackets, wheels,
> etc. [expensive stuff], start giving up.
>
> i don;t think i want a 'touring bike', too heavy.
>
> so, under 22 lbs, last at least 25,000 miles, don;t have to fiddle with it all the time,
> what to get?
>
> not that i would do it til my current bikes are still alive but still, it seems like a question no
> one wants to answer..
>
> wle.

 

[Gary Smiley]

Here in Boston, the potholes would beat the hell out of those fine racing wheels. So I save my racer
for suburban club rides. On my commute, I used to ride a hybrid but I've switched to a Trek 520
touring bike. Maybe your commute goes a lot smoother than mine.

wle wrote:

> i;ve seen it in here, "commuting on a racing bike is hard duty".
>
> but, if you are not really pounding the pedals, it seems to me that the only hard thing is
> mileage.
>
> my one way trip is 13 miles.
>
> i have a couple of mid price road/race bikes.
>
> a. 2002 fuji finest with sora group
> b. 1996 or so gt edge with 600 group
>
> what is about commuting that is supposed to be so hard?
>
> it;s just miles.
>
> i don;t weigh a lot.
>
> what is it that is supposed to be wearing out?
>
> i have had some spokes break on the fuji [alex rims da-22 i think] but overall, it seems fine
> after 5100 miles.
>
> the gt, i have not ridden as much.
>
> the important question though, is, if commuting is hard, and i don;t want to ride a bike over 22
> lbs with pedals, what to buy?
>
> i don;t want it to break.
>
> i don;t want to be replacing parts all the time.
>
> i don;t want to be adjusting stuff all the time [the fuji and gt seem to need constant twiddling
> with derailleurs, spokes/truing, brake cable tension, pedals, it;s always something].
>
> but if you start spending over a certain amount, maybe 1000 or so, the focus starts being on
> weight reduction, exclusively.
>
> it seems reliability is not the main thing any more, over a certain price.
>
> the assumption being that you would be 'racing' the bike and don;t mind fiddling with it, and it;s
> ok if it only lasts 10000 miles before bearings, freewheels, chain rings, bottom brackets, wheels,
> etc. [expensive stuff], start giving up.
>
> i don;t think i want a 'touring bike', too heavy.
>
> so, under 22 lbs, last at least 25,000 miles, don;t have to fiddle with it all the time,
> what to get?
>
> not that i would do it til my current bikes are still alive but still, it seems like a question no
> one wants to answer..
>
> wle.

 

[Jonathan Kaplan]

I own two recumbent trikes. I feel that they are like owning tempermental exotic sports cars. Every
time one small problem gets fixed, something else seems to act up. It's like the old joke about a
Jaguar owner who needs two cars, one for the road to use when the Jaguar is in the shop.

I frequently find myself substituting bikes/trikes at the last minute.

 

[Mike S.]

"Gary Smiley" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Here in Boston, the potholes would beat the hell out of those fine racing wheels. So I save my
> racer for suburban club rides. On my commute, I used to ride a hybrid but I've switched to a Trek
> 520 touring bike. Maybe your commute goes a lot smoother than mine.

<snip for brevity>

I guess it depends on your definition of commuting. When I was riding back and forth to work (appx
60min ea way) I didn't have a real problem with my bikes. Also probably depends on your roads. Mine
are/were pretty smooth. I'd bet that a cyclocross bike with some bigger slicks on it would be great
for commuting if you want a little lighter weight than your typical touring bike.

As far as I was concerned, it was a two-a-day training ride. I didn't bring any more than I had to,
so no panniers, racks, etc. Heck, lots of times I rode my fixed gear. Its amazing what you can climb
if you HAVE to!

I know some guys that bring the kitchen sink with them when they commute, so a bike with stronger
components/wheels would be a good thing for them.

So, to the OP, depending on your area you may be fine riding your road bikes back and forth to work.
Try it and see. If you start having problems, breaking things, THEN you know that you need to change
or upgrade.

Mike

 

[Trent Gregory H]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, wle wrote:

> i;ve seen it in here, "commuting on a racing bike is hard duty".
>
> but, if you are not really pounding the pedals, it seems to me that the only hard thing is
> mileage.
>
> what is about commuting that is supposed to be so hard?
>
> it;s just miles.

As Mike J. pointed out, if you're doing the standard urban or suburban commute here in the US,
you're probably doing it over lovingly potholed roads, RR tracks, frost heaves, etc., in
sufficiently traffic so you don't really get to choose the optimal line over or around it all. So
you wind up beating the **** out of your tires, wheels, butt, back... you name it.

>
> the important question though, is, if commuting is hard, and i don;t want to ride a bike over 22
> lbs with pedals, what to buy?
>

Just curious: what's magic about the 22 pound figure? Given the sort of commuting it sounds like
you're doing, insisting on riding a racing bike with skinny tires is not unlike showing up to a crit
with an old Schwinn cruiser. Horses, courses, etc.

> i don;t want it to break.
>
> i don;t want to be replacing parts all the time.
>
> i don;t want to be adjusting stuff all the time [the fuji and gt seem to need constant twiddling
> with derailleurs, spokes/truing, brake cable tension, pedals, it;s always something].
>
> i don;t think i want a 'touring bike', too heavy.
>

So you've got two racy bikes that, on your account, are fussy and prone to damage; that in all
likelihood aren't really equipped to take racks and fenders (which would make the bike more reliable
and useful for commuting); that probably won't handle a tire wider than 25c, which might make your
wheels less prone to break spokes and go out of true; and you want to get another bike just like
them? Dude....

There's an assortment of off-the-peg touring bikes available in the US that come in at $1000 or less
and weigh in at 27 lbs, tops, that will be day-in, day-out more useful, more practical, probably
more fun, and perhaps faster than your racers. I say faster because you'll be able to put your
commuting load on the bike and not on your back, freeing up your breathing and allowing you to
expend your energy pedaling instead of shouldering a load. And faster too because you'll find
yourself rolling over bumps and potholes that you have to finesse on your current bikes.

Trent

 

[David Reuteler]

wle <[email protected]> wrote:
: so, under 22 lbs, last at least 25,000 miles, don;t have to fiddle with it all the time,
: what to get?

get a fixed gear.

i've been commuting on a way sub 20 pound (no idea actual) track bike for years. very little to
break, nothing to go out of alignment, weighs little, strong wheels. i use 23mm tires, but if you
want wider the surly's will run 'em. and a fixed can be had cheap.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> wle <[email protected]> wrote:

> : so, under 22 lbs, last at least 25,000 miles, don;t have to fiddle with it all the time, what
> : to get?
>
> get a fixed gear.
>
> i've been commuting on a way sub 20 pound (no idea actual) track bike for years. very little to
> break, nothing to go out of alignment, weighs little, strong wheels. i use 23mm tires, but if you
> want wider the surly's will run 'em. and a fixed can be had cheap.

Fixed gear are great if it's flat and not windy, but a pain if it isn't. I rode a track bike in a
hilly city as a teenager, because I couldn't afford a bike with gears. It was fine when I was 16,
but I wouldn't repeat the experience.

While on the subject of Surly, the Crosscheck would be a great commuter bike. You can put racks and
fenders on it, but it's still sportier than a dedicated tourer. Also, the Surly fixed gear frames
are good candidates for hub gears -- which are great for low maintenance.

For dense urban traffic and bad roads, I'd probably prefer a MTB anyway.

Matt O.

 

[John Forrest To]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:21:19 -0800, trent gregory hill <[email protected]> wrote:

>As Mike J. pointed out, if you're doing the standard urban or suburban commute here in the US,
>you're probably doing it over lovingly potholed roads, RR tracks, frost heaves, etc., in
>sufficiently traffic so you don't really get to choose the optimal line over or around it all.

Bike races are exactly the same. You're in a bunch, often can't even see the road in front
of you, etc.

JT

*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged

Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************

 

[David Damerell]

wle <[email protected]> wrote:
>i;ve seen it in here, "commuting on a racing bike is hard duty". but, if you are not really
>pounding the pedals, it seems to me that the only hard thing is mileage.

And luggage; you're usually carrying quite a bit of junk. Other people have discussed the road
surface issues, but as well as work equipment and clothes I carry tools and suchlike because there's
no way to call for assistance if I have a breakdown.

>but if you start spending over a certain amount, maybe 1000 or so, the focus starts being on weight
>reduction, exclusively. it seems reliability is not the main thing any more, over a certain price.
>so, under 22 lbs, last at least 25,000 miles,

"under 22 lbs" and "reliability" aren't necessarily working towards the same goal, y'know. For
instance, I got fed up of breaking cheap aluminium luggage racks, and got a steel one. It's heavier,
but it hasn't broken (yet . Got fed up of battery lights flaking out? Then you want a dynamo hub
- but that's heavier. Fed up of drivetrain problems? Then you want a Rohloff - but that's heavier.
Don't want your laptop bag getting wet (a heavy object in and of itself)? Then you want Ortlieb
luggage - but, guess what, it's heavier...
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

David-<< get a fixed gear.

i've been commuting on a way sub 20 pound (no idea actual) track bike for years. very little to
break, nothing to go out of alignment, weighs little, strong wheels. i use 23mm tires, but if you
want wider the surly's will run 'em. and a fixed can be had cheap.

CONCUR...I commute on my fixie all year and if the route is falttish, the proper gearing is no
problema..If the idea of 'fixed' gives ya the willys, get a single speed(altho those are for
nancys)...and two brakes. But with a fixie, one is just fine..

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Simon Brooke]

David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:

> Fed up of drivetrain problems? Then you want a Rohloff - but that's heavier.

Is it really, when you consider all the parts of a deraileur drive train (hub, freehub, cassette,
rear mech, front mech, extra rings, extra chain, extra changer)? If so, by how much?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out of copper roove nails.

 

[Harvey]

Gary Smiley <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Here in Boston, the potholes would beat the hell out of those fine racing wheels. So I save my
> racer for suburban club rides. On my commute, I used to ride a hybrid but I've switched to a Trek
> 520 touring bike. Maybe your commute goes a lot smoother than mine.
>

I disagree. I find road bikes to be more than reliable enough for my commuting.

I have a 52 mile (round trip) commute from the south shore of Boston to Cambridge that I do roughly
3 to 4 days a week from April to October. I have couple of bikes that I use - both of them fairly
racy (one is a steel framed Holland with Ultegra, the other is a carbon/Al Quatro Assi with Dura
Ace). 23mm wide tires on both. I've averaged less than 2 flats a year over the past 3 years. Not one
wheel dammaged. No ride ending mechanical failures (I had a deraileur cable break once, but I made
it home fine).

I find my mountain bike, that gets much less use, breaks down more than my road bikes (however this
might just be a reflection of how I ride my mountain bike).

All that said, if I was putting together the ultimate commuting bike I would probably lean towards
one of those cool 'cross bikes with a little rear suspention and wider slick tires (25 to 30mm
wide). For comfort, not reliability.

Harvey

 

[Ant]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Fixed gear are great if it's flat and not windy, but a pain if it isn't. I rode a track bike in a
> hilly city as a teenager, because I couldn't afford a bike with gears. It was fine when I was 16,
> but I wouldn't repeat the experience.
>

compared to your sixteen, im a veritably geriatric 22, and fixies still do me fine for commuting and
getting around town around not-so-hilly, but-not-flat boston/suburbs. my bicycling teeth were cut in
connecticut, with some serious hillage, and i chose fixies there too. dont write off fixed gear. if
the hills stomp you the first week, you have a choice to get gears, gear down, or keep riding and be
that much stronger come the next week.

i second the motion that fixed is great for commuting. i like it because i get more ride for the
time, the drivetrain is quiet, maintance-easy, and 'robust'. and its hella-fun. man, i get bored to
tears riding a geared bike. thats the truth.

> While on the subject of Surly, the Crosscheck would be a great commuter bike. You can put racks
> and fenders on it, but it's still sportier than a dedicated tourer. Also, the Surly fixed gear
> frames are good candidates for hub gears

thats what i have. surly xcheck, set up fixed. right now she has full fenders, lights, rack, and
panniers, two brakes, which is a far cry

for her current use, thoguh.

surly has a new frame out, now. or soon, anyway. its called something like the 'long haul trucker',
or similar. its slack angles, beefy construction, touring braze-ons, clearance for commuting
accessories/tires, etc. maybe that is the new best thing since the crosscheck hit it big in the
one-bad-ass-bike-does-it-all category.

anthony

 

[Antti Salonen]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is it really, when you consider all the parts of a deraileur drive train (hub, freehub, cassette,
> rear mech, front mech, extra rings, extra chain, extra changer)? If so, by how much?

I'm geeky enough to like these kind of questions, so I did the math:

The hub itself is 1700 g (cross-country version). I'm not sure if that includes the bolts. In
addition you need the crankset with one chainring (Deore XT, about 760 grams), and some chain (about
250 grams). Depending on the frame you might need a chain tensioner, but I'm assuming that you
don't. Then there's the twist shifter which probably weighs about a hundred grams plus cables. The
Rohloff hub uses two cables just like a conventional setup, so I'm ignoring cables and casings in
both cases. Total: ~2800 g

Then a conventional Deore XT setup: A rear hub (370 g), cranks (860 g), cassette (264 g),
rear derailer (232 g), front derailer (165 g), chain (300 g) and shifters (Deore LX, 240 g).
Total: 2430 g

The Rohloff setup would be more expensive, so for the same budget you could afford some XTR parts
and the weight difference would be greater, but it's still not going to be significant. More
relevant is the fact that you can go cheaper than XT without any significant penalty in performance,
in which case the Rohloff setup would easily be about $500 more expensive.

-as

 

[David Damerell]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:
>>Fed up of drivetrain problems? Then you want a Rohloff - but that's heavier.
>Is it really, when you consider all the parts of a deraileur drive train (hub, freehub, cassette,
>rear mech, front mech, extra rings, extra chain, extra changer)? If so, by how much?

People here who've got them say "yes, it's heavier, but not by a lot". I can't comment, since I
don't have one.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[Wle]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> The primary issue with "commuting" is that you're typically taking the shorted route between two
> points, rather than the most bikeworthy route. That's why it's often so hard on the bike...
> perhaps poorer road surfaces, more traffic making it difficult to avoid hazards, and often doing
> so when lighting isn't optimal.
>
good points. the roads i take are not too bad.
[ idon't take the shortest way, because of heavy traffic. ]

but the lighting and traffic make sense.

wle.

 

[Wle]

trent gregory hill <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, wle wrote:
>
> > i;ve seen it in here, "commuting on a racing bike is hard duty".
> >
>
> As Mike J. pointed out, if you're doing the standard urban or suburban commute here in the US,
> you're probably doing it over lovingly potholed roads, RR tracks, frost heaves, etc., in
> sufficiently traffic so you don't really get to choose the optimal line over or around it all. So
> you wind up beating the **** out of your tires, wheels, butt, back... you name it.
>
the roads don;t seem too bad, but i have broken 2 spokes so far..

> >
> > the important question though, is, if commuting is hard, and i don;t want to ride a bike over 22
> > lbs with pedals, what to buy?
> >
>
> Just curious: what's magic about the 22 pound figure? Given the sort of commuting it sounds like
> you're doing, insisting on riding a racing bike with skinny tires is not unlike showing up to a
> crit with an old Schwinn cruiser. Horses, courses, etc.

22 lbs - it;s about what the bikes i have now weigh. well my bikes are a tad lighter actually.

>
> > i don;t want it to break.
> >
> > i don;t want to be replacing parts all the time.
> >
> > i don;t want to be adjusting stuff all the time [the fuji and gt seem to need constant twiddling
> > with derailleurs, spokes/truing, brake cable tension, pedals, it;s always something].
> >
> > i don;t think i want a 'touring bike', too heavy.
> >
>
> So you've got two racy bikes that, on your account, are fussy and prone to damage; that in all
> likelihood aren't really equipped to take racks and fenders (which would make the bike more
> reliable and useful for commuting); that probably won't handle a tire wider than 25c, which might
> make your wheels less prone to break spokes and go out of true; and you want to get another bike
> just like them? Dude....

no, i just want it to be light and reliable.. doesn;t have to be just like the race bikes.

one does have fenders, now. panniers not necessary, i don;t carry that much.

>
> There's an assortment of off-the-peg touring bikes available in the US that come in at $1000 or
> less and weigh in at 27 lbs, tops, that will be day-in, day-out more useful, more practical,
> probably more fun, and perhaps faster than your racers. I say faster because you'll be able to put
> your commuting load on the bike and not on your back, freeing up your breathing and allowing you
> to expend your energy pedaling instead of shouldering a load. And faster too because you'll find
> yourself rolling over bumps and potholes that you have to finesse on your current bikes.

good points, thanks.

wle.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Antti Salonen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Is it really, when you consider all the parts of a deraileur drive train (hub, freehub,
> > cassette, rear mech, front mech, extra rings, extra chain, extra changer)? If so, by how much?
>
> I'm geeky enough to like these kind of questions, so I did the math:
>
> The hub itself is 1700 g (cross-country version). I'm not sure if that includes the bolts. In
> addition you need the crankset with one chainring (Deore XT, about 760 grams), and some chain
> (about 250 grams). Depending on the frame you might need a chain tensioner, but I'm assuming that
> you don't. Then there's the twist shifter which probably weighs about a hundred grams plus cables.
> The Rohloff hub uses two cables just like a conventional setup, so I'm ignoring cables and casings
> in both cases. Total: ~2800 g
>
> Then a conventional Deore XT setup: A rear hub (370 g), cranks (860 g), cassette (264 g),
> rear derailer (232 g), front derailer (165 g), chain (300 g) and shifters (Deore LX, 240 g).
> Total: 2430 g
>
> The Rohloff setup would be more expensive, so for the same budget you could afford some XTR parts
> and the weight difference would be greater, but it's still not going to be significant. More
> relevant is the fact that you can go cheaper than XT without any significant penalty in
> performance, in which case the Rohloff setup would easily be about $500 more expensive.

So in other words, it's about a pound (for us Americans).

One thing to consider is the lack of a quick release with the Rohloff, and that removing/remounting
the wheel is a bit harder.

Matt O.

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Antti Salonen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Is it really, when you consider all the parts of a deraileur drive train (hub, freehub,
> > > cassette, rear mech, front mech, extra rings, extra chain, extra changer)? If so, by how much?
> >
> > I'm geeky enough to like these kind of questions, so I did the math:
> >
> > The hub itself is 1700 g (cross-country version). I'm not sure if that includes the bolts. In
> > addition you need the crankset with one chainring (Deore XT, about 760 grams), and some chain
> > (about 250 grams). Depending on the frame you might need a chain tensioner, but I'm assuming
> > that you don't. Then there's the twist shifter which probably weighs about a hundred grams plus
> > cables. The Rohloff hub uses two cables just like a conventional setup, so I'm ignoring cables
> > and casings in both cases. Total: ~2800 g
> >
> > Then a conventional Deore XT setup: A rear hub (370 g), cranks (860 g), cassette (264 g), rear
> > derailer (232 g), front derailer (165 g), chain (300 g) and shifters (Deore LX, 240 g). Total:
> > 2430 g
> >
> > The Rohloff setup would be more expensive, so for the same budget you could afford some XTR
> > parts and the weight difference would be greater, but it's still not going to be significant.
> > More relevant is the fact that you can go cheaper than XT without any significant penalty in
> > performance, in which case the Rohloff setup would easily be about $500 more expensive.
>
> So in other words, it's about a pound (for us Americans).
>
> One thing to consider is the lack of a quick release with the Rohloff, and that
> removing/remounting the wheel is a bit harder.

Yehbut...

I've been thinking and doodling about ideas which are based on the Nicolai Nucleon frames, which
have the Rohloff not at the rear hub but at the suspension pivot. Lots of advantages, starting with
lower unsprung weight and less vulnerability to getting bashed on rocks and so on. If you do that,
and you manage to make the suspension pivot perfectly coaxial with the output sprocket[1], then you
can have a box section swing arm which can double as a chain case (you could even run the chain in
an oil bath, but certainly you could protect it from dirt). If you did that, then it isn't much more
difficult to make the box section arm sufficiently stiff that you don't need an arm on the other
side... so now you've got a monoblade rear fork, and you don't have to remove the rear wheel to
change the tyre.

Finally, you permanently assemble the stub axle, splined inner hub and disk brake to the swing arm,
and lace the wheel onto a splined outer hub. The splined outer hub slips onto the splined inner hub
and is retained by a washer and split pin, or some other fairly simple mechanism. Hey presto, a
wheel which is even quicker and easier to change than a conventional bicycle wheel. Don't have to
release or adjust the brakes. Don't have to mess with the chain or the gearing. Pull out one pin,
pull off the wheel. Push the wheel (or another wheel) back on, drop in the pin, spread the ends of
the pin, ride.

The final step in this fantasy is that if the gearbox is at the suspension pivot it doesn't have to
be epicyclic - in fact, it's easier to design and construct if it isn't. A much simple, more
conventional, motorcycle type gearbox layout will do. So the real question in my mind boils down to,
how light is it possible to build a gearbox which will survive and transmit the 200 odd Nm of torque
that a cyclist puts out. If Rohloff can do an epicyclic at 1.7Kg that's a benchmark to aim at.

[1] of course if you aren't interested in suspension this becomes even easier

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out of copper roove nails.