No Lycra here.All XC and downcountry all the time since I'm in the midwest of the US. Pedaling matters 100% of the time to me. It...
No Lycra here.
All XC and downcountry all the time since I'm in the midwest of the US. Pedaling matters 100% of the time to me. It doesn't matter to you and that's cool. Most people on mountain bikes (not ebikes) do some amount of pedaling where they'd find themselves less happy if their experience pedaling were noticeable made worse.
Remember, Vital's forum is where the most enthusiastic of the enthusiasts hang out. The MOST obsessed enthusiasts who are often pushing themselves and their gear to greater and greater heights in the pursuit of mountain bike progression and achievement are the folks who post here. Think about all the people who drive cars. Think about all the people who drive cars capable of going fast. Think about all the people who drive cars that can go fast and also test those cars making small tweaks to try to eek out a little more performance. Think about all the people who drive cars and test them and then gather in groups to talk about their tests and their findings and like to debate others about the aerodynamics of different sorts of paint. That last group is the VitalMTB forum.
You might have a little Baader-Meinhof action happening.
That doesn't answer my question at all. Why do people push back about a few lost watts in something...yet there's all the hype in putting the...
That doesn't answer my question at all. Why do people push back about a few lost watts in something...yet there's all the hype in putting the same watts into some wee pulley in your driveline? I get that some people just like things the way they are, but this is a thread about innovation, not about pretty paint and faster socks.
Maybe I exaggerate when I say derailleur needs to die. What I hope for in this moped update is just that more people actually think about trying something new, rather than worry about 5mm on a chainstay.
I've just seen too many forums with interesting technical news degrade through $500 derailleur pulleys and annual paint jobs into talking about family fishing trips....
insert old man yells at cloud meme**
I think part of the problem is that "MTB" covers a really diverse range of riding styles, and for the different styles, a variety of engineering requirements and interests. It's easy for people (myself included) to only consider the style(s) of riding they do when they promote or bash posts.
I agree that there might be interesting trickle-down technology from the latest "moped" innovations in MGUs for predominantly gravity-driven forms of pedal MTBs. While the idea of a gearbox that is comparable in weight in efficiency to a conventional 1X drive train is exciting, from the engineering side of things, I do not think it is possible. I love innovation, but for me, maybe that comes in the form of a Madrone, rebuildable, modifiable Jab rather than chucking the DR for a gearbox that doesn't pedal as well, and weighs a bunch more. That's the best fit for the kind of riding I like to do, but certainly not for everyone. I have some friends that use them in adventure bikes, and they love them, but those bikes with all their junk attached are around 50 lbs, so the extra 3 lbs or so are perhaps lost in the noise. None of them would consider a GB on their daily XC or trail bikes.
Dissing folks based on what they like to wear when they ride, or the frame material they choose seems inappropriate for this forum, but certainly not the internet as a whole. I've found that most of the time, people here are better than that.
I think part of the problem is that "MTB" covers a really diverse range of riding styles, and for the different styles, a variety of engineering...
I think part of the problem is that "MTB" covers a really diverse range of riding styles, and for the different styles, a variety of engineering requirements and interests. It's easy for people (myself included) to only consider the style(s) of riding they do when they promote or bash posts.
I agree that there might be interesting trickle-down technology from the latest "moped" innovations in MGUs for predominantly gravity-driven forms of pedal MTBs. While the idea of a gearbox that is comparable in weight in efficiency to a conventional 1X drive train is exciting, from the engineering side of things, I do not think it is possible. I love innovation, but for me, maybe that comes in the form of a Madrone, rebuildable, modifiable Jab rather than chucking the DR for a gearbox that doesn't pedal as well, and weighs a bunch more. That's the best fit for the kind of riding I like to do, but certainly not for everyone. I have some friends that use them in adventure bikes, and they love them, but those bikes with all their junk attached are around 50 lbs, so the extra 3 lbs or so are perhaps lost in the noise. None of them would consider a GB on their daily XC or trail bikes.
Dissing folks based on what they like to wear when they ride, or the frame material they choose seems inappropriate for this forum, but certainly not the internet as a whole. I've found that most of the time, people here are better than that.
True.
But again I'm just confused about the ratio here. No-one has answered my question about high pivot, instead deflecting to say "it sucks for XC bikes". Fair, it is heavier and allegedly less efficient, but I had the impression there's also a large proportion of people in this thread that follow and ride 150+mm travel bikes. These bikes have gotten way heavier and less efficient over the years, so my confusion stems from why do people immediately dismiss a gearbox bike? The drag thing is much more noticeable on the internet than actually riding one..
Fair on the "dissing" - I didn't really mean it all that negatively, more so in general trying to group together road and XC, where I simply haven't seen anything innovative in years.
I think part of the problem is that "MTB" covers a really diverse range of riding styles, and for the different styles, a variety of engineering...
I think part of the problem is that "MTB" covers a really diverse range of riding styles, and for the different styles, a variety of engineering requirements and interests. It's easy for people (myself included) to only consider the style(s) of riding they do when they promote or bash posts.
I agree that there might be interesting trickle-down technology from the latest "moped" innovations in MGUs for predominantly gravity-driven forms of pedal MTBs. While the idea of a gearbox that is comparable in weight in efficiency to a conventional 1X drive train is exciting, from the engineering side of things, I do not think it is possible. I love innovation, but for me, maybe that comes in the form of a Madrone, rebuildable, modifiable Jab rather than chucking the DR for a gearbox that doesn't pedal as well, and weighs a bunch more. That's the best fit for the kind of riding I like to do, but certainly not for everyone. I have some friends that use them in adventure bikes, and they love them, but those bikes with all their junk attached are around 50 lbs, so the extra 3 lbs or so are perhaps lost in the noise. None of them would consider a GB on their daily XC or trail bikes.
Dissing folks based on what they like to wear when they ride, or the frame material they choose seems inappropriate for this forum, but certainly not the internet as a whole. I've found that most of the time, people here are better than that.
True.But again I'm just confused about the ratio here. No-one has answered my question about high pivot, instead deflecting to say "it sucks for XC bikes"...
True.
But again I'm just confused about the ratio here. No-one has answered my question about high pivot, instead deflecting to say "it sucks for XC bikes". Fair, it is heavier and allegedly less efficient, but I had the impression there's also a large proportion of people in this thread that follow and ride 150+mm travel bikes. These bikes have gotten way heavier and less efficient over the years, so my confusion stems from why do people immediately dismiss a gearbox bike? The drag thing is much more noticeable on the internet than actually riding one..
Fair on the "dissing" - I didn't really mean it all that negatively, more so in general trying to group together road and XC, where I simply haven't seen anything innovative in years.
I don't think most people articulate why they dismiss gearboxes very well, or at all haha. For me, I'm not too interested in them for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't have the issues with derailleurs that others seem to have, I don't smash them or snag them on rocks, and I race DH and enduro in Utah and Colorado so there are plenty of opportunities for me to do so. Secondly, I like mechanical drivetrains and don't like grip shifts. Unless I have missed something, all mechanical Gear boxes have to use a grip shift to pull cables in both directions, so it's a no go from that aspect. Third, the weight does matter to me. I hate how heavy trail bikes have become, I wish they were lighter and derailleurs are lighter than gear boxes. Fourth is maintenence. I know that you rarely will have to maintain your gear box, but when you do there aren't ways to maintain them easily by yourself and you tend to have to send them in to get serviced.
All of that doesn't mean that there are no benefits to a gear box, I would absolutely run one on my DH bike due to it reducing unspring weight, and potentially allowing for the wheel to be built with a stronger bracing angle, and if they could make mechanical one without a grip shift that's even better. But for normal trail riding, and even aggressive technical trail / enduro riding where I pedal myself up, a derailleur is the best option for me. And I don't want an ebike for most of my riding, maybe to use when I ride with my kids, but never by myself.
FWIW regarding upcoming gearbox ebikes and trickledown to classic bikes, it's a big no. The way these gearbox concepts from Avinox and Gobao work requires an electric motor, so it's a no go for a non electric bicycle.
As for shifters, Pinion has electric shifting via triggers and Effigear always supported trigger shifting, but brings it's own problems in regards to shifting with it.
Regardless if the benefits it's quite likely the current crop of gearboxes would indeed be a no go for the average rider based on the limitations they bring with them.
I don't think most people articulate why they dismiss gearboxes very well, or at all haha. For me, I'm not too interested in them for a...
I don't think most people articulate why they dismiss gearboxes very well, or at all haha. For me, I'm not too interested in them for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't have the issues with derailleurs that others seem to have, I don't smash them or snag them on rocks, and I race DH and enduro in Utah and Colorado so there are plenty of opportunities for me to do so. Secondly, I like mechanical drivetrains and don't like grip shifts. Unless I have missed something, all mechanical Gear boxes have to use a grip shift to pull cables in both directions, so it's a no go from that aspect. Third, the weight does matter to me. I hate how heavy trail bikes have become, I wish they were lighter and derailleurs are lighter than gear boxes. Fourth is maintenence. I know that you rarely will have to maintain your gear box, but when you do there aren't ways to maintain them easily by yourself and you tend to have to send them in to get serviced.
All of that doesn't mean that there are no benefits to a gear box, I would absolutely run one on my DH bike due to it reducing unspring weight, and potentially allowing for the wheel to be built with a stronger bracing angle, and if they could make mechanical one without a grip shift that's even better. But for normal trail riding, and even aggressive technical trail / enduro riding where I pedal myself up, a derailleur is the best option for me. And I don't want an ebike for most of my riding, maybe to use when I ride with my kids, but never by myself.
That new yeti 6bar frame taken apart on pink bike pit piece is looking great. I love the shape of the tubes and adjustable chain stay. The protrusion shape in front of the Bb is also a little less dorky. I’m ready for a turquoise bike
I don't think most people articulate why they dismiss gearboxes very well, or at all haha. For me, I'm not too interested in them for a...
I don't think most people articulate why they dismiss gearboxes very well, or at all haha. For me, I'm not too interested in them for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't have the issues with derailleurs that others seem to have, I don't smash them or snag them on rocks, and I race DH and enduro in Utah and Colorado so there are plenty of opportunities for me to do so. Secondly, I like mechanical drivetrains and don't like grip shifts. Unless I have missed something, all mechanical Gear boxes have to use a grip shift to pull cables in both directions, so it's a no go from that aspect. Third, the weight does matter to me. I hate how heavy trail bikes have become, I wish they were lighter and derailleurs are lighter than gear boxes. Fourth is maintenence. I know that you rarely will have to maintain your gear box, but when you do there aren't ways to maintain them easily by yourself and you tend to have to send them in to get serviced.
All of that doesn't mean that there are no benefits to a gear box, I would absolutely run one on my DH bike due to it reducing unspring weight, and potentially allowing for the wheel to be built with a stronger bracing angle, and if they could make mechanical one without a grip shift that's even better. But for normal trail riding, and even aggressive technical trail / enduro riding where I pedal myself up, a derailleur is the best option for me. And I don't want an ebike for most of my riding, maybe to use when I ride with my kids, but never by myself.
Im tired of the theoretical future debates of drivetrains, but I had a question, why do GB contain belts and not a chain? Im in that sample group and a GB makes sense. Like a starling mini twist GB sounds like my forever bike. However, why belts? I can understand some of the cool features to a belt, no lubing, less noise, maybe less friction, last longer in the elements besides the sun and granite mud. But still, has me puzzled. I just want a single speed chain setup.
Im tired of the theoretical future debates of drivetrains, but I had a question, why do GB contain belts and not a chain? Im in that...
Im tired of the theoretical future debates of drivetrains, but I had a question, why do GB contain belts and not a chain? Im in that sample group and a GB makes sense. Like a starling mini twist GB sounds like my forever bike. However, why belts? I can understand some of the cool features to a belt, no lubing, less noise, maybe less friction, last longer in the elements besides the sun and granite mud. But still, has me puzzled. I just want a single speed chain setup.
Gearboxes are here. High output Analog bikes will still skip them until the gearboxes get way way lighter and smoother, but I think it’s also one of the only things left to push a concept with the geo and suspension designs so dialed. Yes. Chains will be wear they end up tho. Because chains survive mountain biking way better than belts. And are repairable. But none of it matters until tech rumors has more rumors - and that means either 1. Pinion goes hard on a new design or 2. A disruptive box maker comes in with something very clever
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.
They pretty much have to be fully enclosed, as lubricated gears at BB height would never survive otherwise. That's a lot of material to form that enclosure. Perhaps some use of really tough fiber-filled thermo-plastics could offset some of this weight, but the GB is also the bash guard, and there are a lot of internal stresses that the shell has to handle.
Due to material properties of even the most exotic metals, the gears really can't get much smaller, so the GBs, particularly ones that cover 500+% range will inevitably have to remain pretty large. This will keep weight up both for the gears and the shell.
Use of roller chains or belts instead of gears inside the GB would likely vastly increase the size of the GB, to the point that you couldn't fit it in any realistic frame. I doubt you could get away with a smaller pitch chain than we already use, so imagine a pair of 12-speed 10-50 cassettes in a box at the BB.
Gear-on-gear friction is generally higher than a clean roller-chain, and the fact that GB-systems still need either a chain or a belt to complete the drivetrain anyway will never let them compete on efficiency.
For the enduro crowd with high pivots, I'm curious if a different sort of gearbox could be had with an elevated chainring. Like the new Demo, but with a gearbox in place of the second chain. Does anyone know if this has been tried? There are a fair number of dual-chain frames out there, so perhaps this is an opportunity for innovation.
FWIW regarding upcoming gearbox ebikes and trickledown to classic bikes, it's a big no. The way these gearbox concepts from Avinox and Gobao work requires an...
FWIW regarding upcoming gearbox ebikes and trickledown to classic bikes, it's a big no. The way these gearbox concepts from Avinox and Gobao work requires an electric motor, so it's a no go for a non electric bicycle.
As for shifters, Pinion has electric shifting via triggers and Effigear always supported trigger shifting, but brings it's own problems in regards to shifting with it.
Regardless if the benefits it's quite likely the current crop of gearboxes would indeed be a no go for the average rider based on the limitations they bring with them.
I'm thinking more about the perception than implementation.
After owning a box and belt for 2 years now, I'm convinced the downsides are way overblown while there are many advantages no one even considers or mentions.
I don't think most people articulate why they dismiss gearboxes very well, or at all haha. For me, I'm not too interested in them for a...
I don't think most people articulate why they dismiss gearboxes very well, or at all haha. For me, I'm not too interested in them for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't have the issues with derailleurs that others seem to have, I don't smash them or snag them on rocks, and I race DH and enduro in Utah and Colorado so there are plenty of opportunities for me to do so. Secondly, I like mechanical drivetrains and don't like grip shifts. Unless I have missed something, all mechanical Gear boxes have to use a grip shift to pull cables in both directions, so it's a no go from that aspect. Third, the weight does matter to me. I hate how heavy trail bikes have become, I wish they were lighter and derailleurs are lighter than gear boxes. Fourth is maintenence. I know that you rarely will have to maintain your gear box, but when you do there aren't ways to maintain them easily by yourself and you tend to have to send them in to get serviced.
All of that doesn't mean that there are no benefits to a gear box, I would absolutely run one on my DH bike due to it reducing unspring weight, and potentially allowing for the wheel to be built with a stronger bracing angle, and if they could make mechanical one without a grip shift that's even better. But for normal trail riding, and even aggressive technical trail / enduro riding where I pedal myself up, a derailleur is the best option for me. And I don't want an ebike for most of my riding, maybe to use when I ride with my kids, but never by myself.
Thanks for an actual answer!
I can definitely agree with the "if you do need to deal with it, it's not just locally available parts and service". It is actually something that keeps me off many boutique parts..well besides budget these days..
It is a very solid argument that needs to be overcome to change it, no shops will stock belts until they're quite common. And that does take someone who believes the benefits outweigh the risk.
I'm having a harder time with the weight and efficiency argument. Just compare an Enduro bike from pre-2020 and anything today. They got way heavier, beefed up, downhill tires etc. DH tires alone make the same weight difference, and are way more pain to overcome than a few percent in drivetrain losses compared to a clean chain in a straight chain line. So why is that argument going around for years yet is rather inconsistent regarding its benefits?
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.They pretty much have to...
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.
They pretty much have to be fully enclosed, as lubricated gears at BB height would never survive otherwise. That's a lot of material to form that enclosure. Perhaps some use of really tough fiber-filled thermo-plastics could offset some of this weight, but the GB is also the bash guard, and there are a lot of internal stresses that the shell has to handle.
Due to material properties of even the most exotic metals, the gears really can't get much smaller, so the GBs, particularly ones that cover 500+% range will inevitably have to remain pretty large. This will keep weight up both for the gears and the shell.
Use of roller chains or belts instead of gears inside the GB would likely vastly increase the size of the GB, to the point that you couldn't fit it in any realistic frame. I doubt you could get away with a smaller pitch chain than we already use, so imagine a pair of 12-speed 10-50 cassettes in a box at the BB.
Gear-on-gear friction is generally higher than a clean roller-chain, and the fact that GB-systems still need either a chain or a belt to complete the drivetrain anyway will never let them compete on efficiency.
For the enduro crowd with high pivots, I'm curious if a different sort of gearbox could be had with an elevated chainring. Like the new Demo, but with a gearbox in place of the second chain. Does anyone know if this has been tried? There are a fair number of dual-chain frames out there, so perhaps this is an opportunity for innovation.
Thanks. See my last paragraph above though, all these point to the reason I don't understand "why that matters"?
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.They pretty much have to...
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.
They pretty much have to be fully enclosed, as lubricated gears at BB height would never survive otherwise. That's a lot of material to form that enclosure. Perhaps some use of really tough fiber-filled thermo-plastics could offset some of this weight, but the GB is also the bash guard, and there are a lot of internal stresses that the shell has to handle.
Due to material properties of even the most exotic metals, the gears really can't get much smaller, so the GBs, particularly ones that cover 500+% range will inevitably have to remain pretty large. This will keep weight up both for the gears and the shell.
Use of roller chains or belts instead of gears inside the GB would likely vastly increase the size of the GB, to the point that you couldn't fit it in any realistic frame. I doubt you could get away with a smaller pitch chain than we already use, so imagine a pair of 12-speed 10-50 cassettes in a box at the BB.
Gear-on-gear friction is generally higher than a clean roller-chain, and the fact that GB-systems still need either a chain or a belt to complete the drivetrain anyway will never let them compete on efficiency.
For the enduro crowd with high pivots, I'm curious if a different sort of gearbox could be had with an elevated chainring. Like the new Demo, but with a gearbox in place of the second chain. Does anyone know if this has been tried? There are a fair number of dual-chain frames out there, so perhaps this is an opportunity for innovation.
Do you mean like a gear box that is positioned higher in the frame and driven with a belt or chain from a traditional bb position or a gear box that has a drive output higher on the frame? You could always just do a gear box with a jackshaft for driving the rear wheel
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.They pretty much have to...
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.
They pretty much have to be fully enclosed, as lubricated gears at BB height would never survive otherwise. That's a lot of material to form that enclosure. Perhaps some use of really tough fiber-filled thermo-plastics could offset some of this weight, but the GB is also the bash guard, and there are a lot of internal stresses that the shell has to handle.
Due to material properties of even the most exotic metals, the gears really can't get much smaller, so the GBs, particularly ones that cover 500+% range will inevitably have to remain pretty large. This will keep weight up both for the gears and the shell.
Use of roller chains or belts instead of gears inside the GB would likely vastly increase the size of the GB, to the point that you couldn't fit it in any realistic frame. I doubt you could get away with a smaller pitch chain than we already use, so imagine a pair of 12-speed 10-50 cassettes in a box at the BB.
Gear-on-gear friction is generally higher than a clean roller-chain, and the fact that GB-systems still need either a chain or a belt to complete the drivetrain anyway will never let them compete on efficiency.
For the enduro crowd with high pivots, I'm curious if a different sort of gearbox could be had with an elevated chainring. Like the new Demo, but with a gearbox in place of the second chain. Does anyone know if this has been tried? There are a fair number of dual-chain frames out there, so perhaps this is an opportunity for innovation.
I do remember a couple of high pivot DH bikes that used an internally geared hub at the pivot ..
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.They pretty much have to...
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.
They pretty much have to be fully enclosed, as lubricated gears at BB height would never survive otherwise. That's a lot of material to form that enclosure. Perhaps some use of really tough fiber-filled thermo-plastics could offset some of this weight, but the GB is also the bash guard, and there are a lot of internal stresses that the shell has to handle.
Due to material properties of even the most exotic metals, the gears really can't get much smaller, so the GBs, particularly ones that cover 500+% range will inevitably have to remain pretty large. This will keep weight up both for the gears and the shell.
Use of roller chains or belts instead of gears inside the GB would likely vastly increase the size of the GB, to the point that you couldn't fit it in any realistic frame. I doubt you could get away with a smaller pitch chain than we already use, so imagine a pair of 12-speed 10-50 cassettes in a box at the BB.
Gear-on-gear friction is generally higher than a clean roller-chain, and the fact that GB-systems still need either a chain or a belt to complete the drivetrain anyway will never let them compete on efficiency.
For the enduro crowd with high pivots, I'm curious if a different sort of gearbox could be had with an elevated chainring. Like the new Demo, but with a gearbox in place of the second chain. Does anyone know if this has been tried? There are a fair number of dual-chain frames out there, so perhaps this is an opportunity for innovation.
The original Effigear was actually spot on with this, and it used a trigger shifter … and yes, it’s a development cycle that will come back around to enduro and park bikes first… I agree with your points on the challenges.
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.They pretty much have to...
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.
They pretty much have to be fully enclosed, as lubricated gears at BB height would never survive otherwise. That's a lot of material to form that enclosure. Perhaps some use of really tough fiber-filled thermo-plastics could offset some of this weight, but the GB is also the bash guard, and there are a lot of internal stresses that the shell has to handle.
Due to material properties of even the most exotic metals, the gears really can't get much smaller, so the GBs, particularly ones that cover 500+% range will inevitably have to remain pretty large. This will keep weight up both for the gears and the shell.
Use of roller chains or belts instead of gears inside the GB would likely vastly increase the size of the GB, to the point that you couldn't fit it in any realistic frame. I doubt you could get away with a smaller pitch chain than we already use, so imagine a pair of 12-speed 10-50 cassettes in a box at the BB.
Gear-on-gear friction is generally higher than a clean roller-chain, and the fact that GB-systems still need either a chain or a belt to complete the drivetrain anyway will never let them compete on efficiency.
For the enduro crowd with high pivots, I'm curious if a different sort of gearbox could be had with an elevated chainring. Like the new Demo, but with a gearbox in place of the second chain. Does anyone know if this has been tried? There are a fair number of dual-chain frames out there, so perhaps this is an opportunity for innovation.
Do you mean like a gear box that is positioned higher in the frame and driven with a belt or chain from a traditional bb position...
Do you mean like a gear box that is positioned higher in the frame and driven with a belt or chain from a traditional bb position or a gear box that has a drive output higher on the frame? You could always just do a gear box with a jackshaft for driving the rear wheel
The later. I haven't spent enough time looking at how Pinion and others layout the internals, but I suspect that the requirement to have the input and output shafts concentric creates some challenging design constraints. A GB that replaced the second chain on dual chain bikes might free up some of these. on the other hand, it would freeze up the BB-to-pivot radius, so perhaps it would be far too restrictive for frame designers - kind of a one-off thing.
Probably some people here will call this blasphemous, but I wonder if it might be too soon to know if high-pivot designs with idlers are here to stay. It seems like some of the companies famous for them are dropping them except for long-travel frames. I'm more of an XC/trail guy, so I would consider myself an outside observer in this particular area, but even if I don't participate in a particular discipline, as an engineer, I'm always fascinated to see what shows up. At this time of year, I feel like the Pit-Bit videos are feeding my habit.
High pivot bikes like most things seem to go in cycles. My bet is you'll see a few core brands stick with them while other brands keep pivoting (pun) to make new products to sell to existing customers. In the early 00's Balfa and others had a good crack at it, then they went away outside of Zerode. The increasing market share of long travel emtbs might effect that but I'm unsure how.
Maybe this isn't an accurate point of view, but I feel like pedal MTBs and e-bikes aren't really trying to solve the same problems. I think a pretty massive effort goes into the design of pedal MTBs so that they can be comfortably and efficiently pedaled, at least outside of DH-specific bikes. Even enduro bikes, especially those that are raced, need to pedal decently. For an e-bike, pedal performance is probably pretty far down on the list of design goals. I've watched a handful of folks with dead batteries or faulty electronics try to pedal their 50-lb beasts out of the park to appreciate the magnitude of this oversight. With this in mind, I won't be at all surprised if the suspension and drive-designs between the two start/continue to diverge. Probably less so with the SL e-bikes, but in full force with the latest products designed around 2 HP motors.
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.They pretty much have to...
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.
They pretty much have to be fully enclosed, as lubricated gears at BB height would never survive otherwise. That's a lot of material to form that enclosure. Perhaps some use of really tough fiber-filled thermo-plastics could offset some of this weight, but the GB is also the bash guard, and there are a lot of internal stresses that the shell has to handle.
Due to material properties of even the most exotic metals, the gears really can't get much smaller, so the GBs, particularly ones that cover 500+% range will inevitably have to remain pretty large. This will keep weight up both for the gears and the shell.
Use of roller chains or belts instead of gears inside the GB would likely vastly increase the size of the GB, to the point that you couldn't fit it in any realistic frame. I doubt you could get away with a smaller pitch chain than we already use, so imagine a pair of 12-speed 10-50 cassettes in a box at the BB.
Gear-on-gear friction is generally higher than a clean roller-chain, and the fact that GB-systems still need either a chain or a belt to complete the drivetrain anyway will never let them compete on efficiency.
For the enduro crowd with high pivots, I'm curious if a different sort of gearbox could be had with an elevated chainring. Like the new Demo, but with a gearbox in place of the second chain. Does anyone know if this has been tried? There are a fair number of dual-chain frames out there, so perhaps this is an opportunity for innovation.
Effigear had or has the option of a nonconcentric output. Cavaliere bikes used it in the past.
As for two cassettes in a box, you actually need like two 11-25 cassettes to get 516% of range if you run them "back to front" like in the shimano patent. Two 10-50 cassettes, besides definitely not fitting, would give you 2500 % of range. That's a bit much.
Effigear had or has the option of a nonconcentric output. Cavaliere bikes used it in the past. As for two cassettes in a box, you actually need...
Effigear had or has the option of a nonconcentric output. Cavaliere bikes used it in the past.
As for two cassettes in a box, you actually need like two 11-25 cassettes to get 516% of range if you run them "back to front" like in the shimano patent. Two 10-50 cassettes, besides definitely not fitting, would give you 2500 % of range. That's a bit much.
Maybe this isn't an accurate point of view, but I feel like pedal MTBs and e-bikes aren't really trying to solve the same problems. I think...
Maybe this isn't an accurate point of view, but I feel like pedal MTBs and e-bikes aren't really trying to solve the same problems. I think a pretty massive effort goes into the design of pedal MTBs so that they can be comfortably and efficiently pedaled, at least outside of DH-specific bikes. Even enduro bikes, especially those that are raced, need to pedal decently. For an e-bike, pedal performance is probably pretty far down on the list of design goals. I've watched a handful of folks with dead batteries or faulty electronics try to pedal their 50-lb beasts out of the park to appreciate the magnitude of this oversight. With this in mind, I won't be at all surprised if the suspension and drive-designs between the two start/continue to diverge. Probably less so with the SL e-bikes, but in full force with the latest products designed around 2 HP motors.
To conclude the gearbox talk from me, I think it's very likely ebikes will have some sort of gearbox in the future, but I doubt that will happen for pedal bikes. I think 1x11 and for sure 1x12 drivetrains were the nails in the coffin of gearboxes. Traditional drivetrains work too well and don't have the negatives (drag and weight) the gearboxes have.
Furthermore, ebikes with the current crop of powerful motors need a gearbox due to the power getting out of control. Plus SL bikes are going away so emtb is becoming a different sport to regular pedal bikes anyway. Having different types of drivetrain between the two is the least of the differences.
I think part of the problem is that "MTB" covers a really diverse range of riding styles, and for the different styles, a variety of engineering requirements and interests. It's easy for people (myself included) to only consider the style(s) of riding they do when they promote or bash posts.
I agree that there might be interesting trickle-down technology from the latest "moped" innovations in MGUs for predominantly gravity-driven forms of pedal MTBs. While the idea of a gearbox that is comparable in weight in efficiency to a conventional 1X drive train is exciting, from the engineering side of things, I do not think it is possible. I love innovation, but for me, maybe that comes in the form of a Madrone, rebuildable, modifiable Jab rather than chucking the DR for a gearbox that doesn't pedal as well, and weighs a bunch more. That's the best fit for the kind of riding I like to do, but certainly not for everyone. I have some friends that use them in adventure bikes, and they love them, but those bikes with all their junk attached are around 50 lbs, so the extra 3 lbs or so are perhaps lost in the noise. None of them would consider a GB on their daily XC or trail bikes.
Dissing folks based on what they like to wear when they ride, or the frame material they choose seems inappropriate for this forum, but certainly not the internet as a whole. I've found that most of the time, people here are better than that.
True.
But again I'm just confused about the ratio here. No-one has answered my question about high pivot, instead deflecting to say "it sucks for XC bikes". Fair, it is heavier and allegedly less efficient, but I had the impression there's also a large proportion of people in this thread that follow and ride 150+mm travel bikes. These bikes have gotten way heavier and less efficient over the years, so my confusion stems from why do people immediately dismiss a gearbox bike? The drag thing is much more noticeable on the internet than actually riding one..
Fair on the "dissing" - I didn't really mean it all that negatively, more so in general trying to group together road and XC, where I simply haven't seen anything innovative in years.
May have been brought up before, but heard Norco Aurum release planned for Whistler World Cup weekend.
I don't think most people articulate why they dismiss gearboxes very well, or at all haha. For me, I'm not too interested in them for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't have the issues with derailleurs that others seem to have, I don't smash them or snag them on rocks, and I race DH and enduro in Utah and Colorado so there are plenty of opportunities for me to do so. Secondly, I like mechanical drivetrains and don't like grip shifts. Unless I have missed something, all mechanical Gear boxes have to use a grip shift to pull cables in both directions, so it's a no go from that aspect. Third, the weight does matter to me. I hate how heavy trail bikes have become, I wish they were lighter and derailleurs are lighter than gear boxes. Fourth is maintenence. I know that you rarely will have to maintain your gear box, but when you do there aren't ways to maintain them easily by yourself and you tend to have to send them in to get serviced.
All of that doesn't mean that there are no benefits to a gear box, I would absolutely run one on my DH bike due to it reducing unspring weight, and potentially allowing for the wheel to be built with a stronger bracing angle, and if they could make mechanical one without a grip shift that's even better. But for normal trail riding, and even aggressive technical trail / enduro riding where I pedal myself up, a derailleur is the best option for me. And I don't want an ebike for most of my riding, maybe to use when I ride with my kids, but never by myself.
Will second that, but it's going to be called the Team DH, not the Arum.
FWIW regarding upcoming gearbox ebikes and trickledown to classic bikes, it's a big no. The way these gearbox concepts from Avinox and Gobao work requires an electric motor, so it's a no go for a non electric bicycle.
As for shifters, Pinion has electric shifting via triggers and Effigear always supported trigger shifting, but brings it's own problems in regards to shifting with it.
Regardless if the benefits it's quite likely the current crop of gearboxes would indeed be a no go for the average rider based on the limitations they bring with them.
pinion is electric by now, you press buttons.
That new yeti 6bar frame taken apart on pink bike pit piece is looking great. I love the shape of the tubes and adjustable chain stay. The protrusion shape in front of the Bb is also a little less dorky. I’m ready for a turquoise bike
Well yeah, but I don't want electric shifting, and all mechanical pinions use grip shifts or you have to track down weird after market shifters.
Hell yea
that’s a YOU problem then
Im tired of the theoretical future debates of drivetrains, but I had a question, why do GB contain belts and not a chain? Im in that sample group and a GB makes sense. Like a starling mini twist GB sounds like my forever bike. However, why belts? I can understand some of the cool features to a belt, no lubing, less noise, maybe less friction, last longer in the elements besides the sun and granite mud. But still, has me puzzled. I just want a single speed chain setup.
Gearboxes are here. High output Analog bikes will still skip them until the gearboxes get way way lighter and smoother, but I think it’s also one of the only things left to push a concept with the geo and suspension designs so dialed. Yes. Chains will be wear they end up tho. Because chains survive mountain biking way better than belts. And are repairable. But none of it matters until tech rumors has more rumors - and that means either 1. Pinion goes hard on a new design or 2. A disruptive box maker comes in with something very clever
There are some pretty tough engineering challenges that need to be overcome before gearboxes can find their way into mainstream pedal MTBs.
For the enduro crowd with high pivots, I'm curious if a different sort of gearbox could be had with an elevated chainring. Like the new Demo, but with a gearbox in place of the second chain. Does anyone know if this has been tried? There are a fair number of dual-chain frames out there, so perhaps this is an opportunity for innovation.
I'm thinking more about the perception than implementation.
After owning a box and belt for 2 years now, I'm convinced the downsides are way overblown while there are many advantages no one even considers or mentions.
Thanks for an actual answer!
I can definitely agree with the "if you do need to deal with it, it's not just locally available parts and service". It is actually something that keeps me off many boutique parts..well besides budget these days..
It is a very solid argument that needs to be overcome to change it, no shops will stock belts until they're quite common. And that does take someone who believes the benefits outweigh the risk.
I'm having a harder time with the weight and efficiency argument. Just compare an Enduro bike from pre-2020 and anything today. They got way heavier, beefed up, downhill tires etc. DH tires alone make the same weight difference, and are way more pain to overcome than a few percent in drivetrain losses compared to a clean chain in a straight chain line. So why is that argument going around for years yet is rather inconsistent regarding its benefits?
Thanks. See my last paragraph above though, all these point to the reason I don't understand "why that matters"?
Obviously, I was sharing why I wouldn't get a gearbox.
Do you mean like a gear box that is positioned higher in the frame and driven with a belt or chain from a traditional bb position or a gear box that has a drive output higher on the frame? You could always just do a gear box with a jackshaft for driving the rear wheel
I do remember a couple of high pivot DH bikes that used an internally geared hub at the pivot ..
The original Effigear was actually spot on with this, and it used a trigger shifter … and yes, it’s a development cycle that will come back around to enduro and park bikes first… I agree with your points on the challenges.
The later. I haven't spent enough time looking at how Pinion and others layout the internals, but I suspect that the requirement to have the input and output shafts concentric creates some challenging design constraints. A GB that replaced the second chain on dual chain bikes might free up some of these. on the other hand, it would freeze up the BB-to-pivot radius, so perhaps it would be far too restrictive for frame designers - kind of a one-off thing.
Probably some people here will call this blasphemous, but I wonder if it might be too soon to know if high-pivot designs with idlers are here to stay. It seems like some of the companies famous for them are dropping them except for long-travel frames. I'm more of an XC/trail guy, so I would consider myself an outside observer in this particular area, but even if I don't participate in a particular discipline, as an engineer, I'm always fascinated to see what shows up. At this time of year, I feel like the Pit-Bit videos are feeding my habit.
High pivot bikes like most things seem to go in cycles. My bet is you'll see a few core brands stick with them while other brands keep pivoting (pun) to make new products to sell to existing customers. In the early 00's Balfa and others had a good crack at it, then they went away outside of Zerode. The increasing market share of long travel emtbs might effect that but I'm unsure how.
Maybe this isn't an accurate point of view, but I feel like pedal MTBs and e-bikes aren't really trying to solve the same problems. I think a pretty massive effort goes into the design of pedal MTBs so that they can be comfortably and efficiently pedaled, at least outside of DH-specific bikes. Even enduro bikes, especially those that are raced, need to pedal decently. For an e-bike, pedal performance is probably pretty far down on the list of design goals. I've watched a handful of folks with dead batteries or faulty electronics try to pedal their 50-lb beasts out of the park to appreciate the magnitude of this oversight. With this in mind, I won't be at all surprised if the suspension and drive-designs between the two start/continue to diverge. Probably less so with the SL e-bikes, but in full force with the latest products designed around 2 HP motors.
Effigear had or has the option of a nonconcentric output. Cavaliere bikes used it in the past.
As for two cassettes in a box, you actually need like two 11-25 cassettes to get 516% of range if you run them "back to front" like in the shimano patent. Two 10-50 cassettes, besides definitely not fitting, would give you 2500 % of range. That's a bit much.
As they say, more bigger more better!
To conclude the gearbox talk from me, I think it's very likely ebikes will have some sort of gearbox in the future, but I doubt that will happen for pedal bikes. I think 1x11 and for sure 1x12 drivetrains were the nails in the coffin of gearboxes. Traditional drivetrains work too well and don't have the negatives (drag and weight) the gearboxes have.
Furthermore, ebikes with the current crop of powerful motors need a gearbox due to the power getting out of control. Plus SL bikes are going away so emtb is becoming a different sport to regular pedal bikes anyway. Having different types of drivetrain between the two is the least of the differences.
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker