Also, It seems that Gates is proposing a rubber belt for the CVT. Most modern car CVTs use a steel chain, and google AI has this to say about that:
Modern Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) steel belts provide around 80% to 88% mechanical efficiency. While this is slightly lower than a traditional manual transmission, CVTs offer superior overall fuel economy. They do this by keeping the engine at its most efficient RPM at all times
As long as this is now an "innovation of CVTs for bikes" thread, I think it's key to point out that the conventional 1x12 drive train is roughly constant efficiency in all gears, slight worse for cross-chaining, and slight worse for smaller cogs due to increased internal friction in the chain links bending around small cogs. There's data for this kind of thing online.
When we are talking about gearboxes with and without CVTs, we still have to pay most of the efficiency loss that a conventional drivetrain sees, since we still need a belt or chain to reach from the front ring to the wheel. It may not incur the adverse chain-line and small cog losses (unless there are small idlers to keep the belt or chain in tension during suspension travel), but it will be comparable. We also have to pay for any additional losses incurred by the gearbox and/or CVT.
For a 2 HP electric-motor-driven bike - who cares. I guess the GB and/or CVT might develop some heat from the waste Wattage, but if it doesn't wreck the system, no one will notice the loss I think. For pedal driven bikes, on rides where there is a lot of pedaling at high power, most will care I suspect. For park riders that take shuttles or a lift up, and just need to pedal a bit on level segments, you might not care, and maybe getting rid of the DR and the unsprung mass that goes with it will be the right choice for you.
As long as this is now an "innovation of CVTs for bikes" thread, I think it's key to point out that the conventional 1x12 drive train...
As long as this is now an "innovation of CVTs for bikes" thread, I think it's key to point out that the conventional 1x12 drive train is roughly constant efficiency in all gears, slight worse for cross-chaining, and slight worse for smaller cogs due to increased internal friction in the chain links bending around small cogs. There's data for this kind of thing online.
When we are talking about gearboxes with and without CVTs, we still have to pay most of the efficiency loss that a conventional drivetrain sees, since we still need a belt or chain to reach from the front ring to the wheel. It may not incur the adverse chain-line and small cog losses (unless there are small idlers to keep the belt or chain in tension during suspension travel), but it will be comparable. We also have to pay for any additional losses incurred by the gearbox and/or CVT.
For a 2 HP electric-motor-driven bike - who cares. I guess the GB and/or CVT might develop some heat from the waste Wattage, but if it doesn't wreck the system, no one will notice the loss I think. For pedal driven bikes, on rides where there is a lot of pedaling at high power, most will care I suspect. For park riders that take shuttles or a lift up, and just need to pedal a bit on level segments, you might not care, and maybe getting rid of the DR and the unsprung mass that goes with it will be the right choice for you.
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and looking like the future of ebikes, the door is open for more mainstream options. We're at an inflection point whether you like it or not — this isn't the same gearbox talk we've had for the last ten years. It's actually picking up steam.
Everyone fixates on efficiency, but what about pulling all that weight off the rear axle and putting it under the BB? For gravity riders that's a significant benefit. Efficiency is not the only thing that matters. Also as gearboxes get more popular, we'll see more competition in the space and likely further gains in efficiency — the same way derailleurs improved over the last decade.
If you don't want a gearbox, fine. I'm sure there will be derailleur options too. But I don't know a single gravity-focused rider who's in love with a derailleur. If you've never had a derailleur accident, I'll just say it: you either aren't riding hard enough or you live somewhere without rocks. For those of us in rocky terrain who ride DH, derailleurs are a hazard, plain and simple. I haven't broken a ton of them, but enough that I always protect my right side and think twice about line choice. Not to mention the constant cleaning.
As long as this is now an "innovation of CVTs for bikes" thread, I think it's key to point out that the conventional 1x12 drive train...
As long as this is now an "innovation of CVTs for bikes" thread, I think it's key to point out that the conventional 1x12 drive train is roughly constant efficiency in all gears, slight worse for cross-chaining, and slight worse for smaller cogs due to increased internal friction in the chain links bending around small cogs. There's data for this kind of thing online.
When we are talking about gearboxes with and without CVTs, we still have to pay most of the efficiency loss that a conventional drivetrain sees, since we still need a belt or chain to reach from the front ring to the wheel. It may not incur the adverse chain-line and small cog losses (unless there are small idlers to keep the belt or chain in tension during suspension travel), but it will be comparable. We also have to pay for any additional losses incurred by the gearbox and/or CVT.
For a 2 HP electric-motor-driven bike - who cares. I guess the GB and/or CVT might develop some heat from the waste Wattage, but if it doesn't wreck the system, no one will notice the loss I think. For pedal driven bikes, on rides where there is a lot of pedaling at high power, most will care I suspect. For park riders that take shuttles or a lift up, and just need to pedal a bit on level segments, you might not care, and maybe getting rid of the DR and the unsprung mass that goes with it will be the right choice for you.
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and...
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and looking like the future of ebikes, the door is open for more mainstream options. We're at an inflection point whether you like it or not — this isn't the same gearbox talk we've had for the last ten years. It's actually picking up steam.
Everyone fixates on efficiency, but what about pulling all that weight off the rear axle and putting it under the BB? For gravity riders that's a significant benefit. Efficiency is not the only thing that matters. Also as gearboxes get more popular, we'll see more competition in the space and likely further gains in efficiency — the same way derailleurs improved over the last decade.
If you don't want a gearbox, fine. I'm sure there will be derailleur options too. But I don't know a single gravity-focused rider who's in love with a derailleur. If you've never had a derailleur accident, I'll just say it: you either aren't riding hard enough or you live somewhere without rocks. For those of us in rocky terrain who ride DH, derailleurs are a hazard, plain and simple. I haven't broken a ton of them, but enough that I always protect my right side and think twice about line choice. Not to mention the constant cleaning.
How many of those DH teams do you think would be running gearboxes right now if there wasn't a €100k carrot being dangled before them?
As long as this is now an "innovation of CVTs for bikes" thread, I think it's key to point out that the conventional 1x12 drive train...
As long as this is now an "innovation of CVTs for bikes" thread, I think it's key to point out that the conventional 1x12 drive train is roughly constant efficiency in all gears, slight worse for cross-chaining, and slight worse for smaller cogs due to increased internal friction in the chain links bending around small cogs. There's data for this kind of thing online.
When we are talking about gearboxes with and without CVTs, we still have to pay most of the efficiency loss that a conventional drivetrain sees, since we still need a belt or chain to reach from the front ring to the wheel. It may not incur the adverse chain-line and small cog losses (unless there are small idlers to keep the belt or chain in tension during suspension travel), but it will be comparable. We also have to pay for any additional losses incurred by the gearbox and/or CVT.
For a 2 HP electric-motor-driven bike - who cares. I guess the GB and/or CVT might develop some heat from the waste Wattage, but if it doesn't wreck the system, no one will notice the loss I think. For pedal driven bikes, on rides where there is a lot of pedaling at high power, most will care I suspect. For park riders that take shuttles or a lift up, and just need to pedal a bit on level segments, you might not care, and maybe getting rid of the DR and the unsprung mass that goes with it will be the right choice for you.
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and...
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and looking like the future of ebikes, the door is open for more mainstream options. We're at an inflection point whether you like it or not — this isn't the same gearbox talk we've had for the last ten years. It's actually picking up steam.
Everyone fixates on efficiency, but what about pulling all that weight off the rear axle and putting it under the BB? For gravity riders that's a significant benefit. Efficiency is not the only thing that matters. Also as gearboxes get more popular, we'll see more competition in the space and likely further gains in efficiency — the same way derailleurs improved over the last decade.
If you don't want a gearbox, fine. I'm sure there will be derailleur options too. But I don't know a single gravity-focused rider who's in love with a derailleur. If you've never had a derailleur accident, I'll just say it: you either aren't riding hard enough or you live somewhere without rocks. For those of us in rocky terrain who ride DH, derailleurs are a hazard, plain and simple. I haven't broken a ton of them, but enough that I always protect my right side and think twice about line choice. Not to mention the constant cleaning.
How many of those DH teams do you think would be running gearboxes right now if there wasn't a €100k carrot being dangled before them?
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a winning platform is more valuable than the prize money.
Getting weight in the bottom bracket area is currently en vogue anyway and due to their production technique I don't think it was that much of a hussle to get it done, so I think the carrot is working for Atherton.
Probably more valueable is the free marketing and the attention their getting - plus it makes them seem more innovative as well.
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a...
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a winning platform is more valuable than the prize money.
Probably true, but it can't be ignored either. It's certainly an awful coincidence...
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and...
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and looking like the future of ebikes, the door is open for more mainstream options. We're at an inflection point whether you like it or not — this isn't the same gearbox talk we've had for the last ten years. It's actually picking up steam.
Everyone fixates on efficiency, but what about pulling all that weight off the rear axle and putting it under the BB? For gravity riders that's a significant benefit. Efficiency is not the only thing that matters. Also as gearboxes get more popular, we'll see more competition in the space and likely further gains in efficiency — the same way derailleurs improved over the last decade.
If you don't want a gearbox, fine. I'm sure there will be derailleur options too. But I don't know a single gravity-focused rider who's in love with a derailleur. If you've never had a derailleur accident, I'll just say it: you either aren't riding hard enough or you live somewhere without rocks. For those of us in rocky terrain who ride DH, derailleurs are a hazard, plain and simple. I haven't broken a ton of them, but enough that I always protect my right side and think twice about line choice. Not to mention the constant cleaning.
I would dare to guess that people who struggle with derailleur damage are riding right foot forward. I ride with left foot forward and right foot is effectively protecting the mech, it also makes me more aware of potential obstacles that could hit it, because I don't want to hit the rear pedal with it either.
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a...
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a winning platform is more valuable than the prize money.
Gates also sponsors the teams that are running the gearbox / belt. I suspect cash was involved, not just product.
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and...
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and looking like the future of ebikes, the door is open for more mainstream options. We're at an inflection point whether you like it or not — this isn't the same gearbox talk we've had for the last ten years. It's actually picking up steam.
Everyone fixates on efficiency, but what about pulling all that weight off the rear axle and putting it under the BB? For gravity riders that's a significant benefit. Efficiency is not the only thing that matters. Also as gearboxes get more popular, we'll see more competition in the space and likely further gains in efficiency — the same way derailleurs improved over the last decade.
If you don't want a gearbox, fine. I'm sure there will be derailleur options too. But I don't know a single gravity-focused rider who's in love with a derailleur. If you've never had a derailleur accident, I'll just say it: you either aren't riding hard enough or you live somewhere without rocks. For those of us in rocky terrain who ride DH, derailleurs are a hazard, plain and simple. I haven't broken a ton of them, but enough that I always protect my right side and think twice about line choice. Not to mention the constant cleaning.
I would dare to guess that people who struggle with derailleur damage are riding right foot forward. I ride with left foot forward and right foot...
I would dare to guess that people who struggle with derailleur damage are riding right foot forward. I ride with left foot forward and right foot is effectively protecting the mech, it also makes me more aware of potential obstacles that could hit it, because I don't want to hit the rear pedal with it either.
I ride left foot forward and I’ve gone through plenty of derailleur hangers.
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a...
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a winning platform is more valuable than the prize money.
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a...
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a winning platform is more valuable than the prize money.
A better question is if any DH bikes would still have derailleurs if you didn't have massive relationships between SRAM, Shimano and the big brands. Moving a...
A better question is if any DH bikes would still have derailleurs if you didn't have massive relationships between SRAM, Shimano and the big brands.
Moving a bunch of weight off the rear axle to an enclosed system under the bb is perfect for DH.
Ha, I ride left forward, often break derailleurs, and since I put flat pedals on the ebike I've bashed and broken two right pedals! I never thought...
Ha, I ride left forward, often break derailleurs, and since I put flat pedals on the ebike I've bashed and broken two right pedals!
I never thought to put two and two together
I too am a left foot forward guy. I have had pretty good luck over the years with derailleurs and hangers. If all of a sudden, they were gone, a whole new world of line choices would open up for me. I think I have always given an extra bit of caution to that side of the bike. Also, would not mind the improved rear suspension feel without that additional weight back there.
Imagine strapping a pound of weight to your front fork axle... bet it's a pretty noticeable effect on suspension performance
Not even just suspension performance, I would bet entire bike feel. I have a hardtail with sliding dropouts that I can set up with a drivetrain or single speed. Without considering pedaling experience, in 1x10 mode it feels more planted and damped, but in 1x1 mode it feels way more poppy and easier to throw around with less weight back there.
Also, It seems that Gates is proposing a rubber belt for the CVT. Most modern car CVTs use a steel chain, and google AI has this to say about that:
Modern Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) steel belts provide around 80% to 88% mechanical efficiency. While this is slightly lower than a traditional manual transmission, CVTs offer superior overall fuel economy. They do this by keeping the engine at its most efficient RPM at all times
As long as this is now an "innovation of CVTs for bikes" thread, I think it's key to point out that the conventional 1x12 drive train is roughly constant efficiency in all gears, slight worse for cross-chaining, and slight worse for smaller cogs due to increased internal friction in the chain links bending around small cogs. There's data for this kind of thing online.
When we are talking about gearboxes with and without CVTs, we still have to pay most of the efficiency loss that a conventional drivetrain sees, since we still need a belt or chain to reach from the front ring to the wheel. It may not incur the adverse chain-line and small cog losses (unless there are small idlers to keep the belt or chain in tension during suspension travel), but it will be comparable. We also have to pay for any additional losses incurred by the gearbox and/or CVT.
For a 2 HP electric-motor-driven bike - who cares. I guess the GB and/or CVT might develop some heat from the waste Wattage, but if it doesn't wreck the system, no one will notice the loss I think. For pedal driven bikes, on rides where there is a lot of pedaling at high power, most will care I suspect. For park riders that take shuttles or a lift up, and just need to pedal a bit on level segments, you might not care, and maybe getting rid of the DR and the unsprung mass that goes with it will be the right choice for you.
Everyone knows gearboxes are currently less efficient than derailleurs. But with a gearbox sitting 2nd overall in the EDR, running on multiple competitive DH teams, and looking like the future of ebikes, the door is open for more mainstream options. We're at an inflection point whether you like it or not — this isn't the same gearbox talk we've had for the last ten years. It's actually picking up steam.
Everyone fixates on efficiency, but what about pulling all that weight off the rear axle and putting it under the BB? For gravity riders that's a significant benefit. Efficiency is not the only thing that matters. Also as gearboxes get more popular, we'll see more competition in the space and likely further gains in efficiency — the same way derailleurs improved over the last decade.
If you don't want a gearbox, fine. I'm sure there will be derailleur options too. But I don't know a single gravity-focused rider who's in love with a derailleur. If you've never had a derailleur accident, I'll just say it: you either aren't riding hard enough or you live somewhere without rocks. For those of us in rocky terrain who ride DH, derailleurs are a hazard, plain and simple. I haven't broken a ton of them, but enough that I always protect my right side and think twice about line choice. Not to mention the constant cleaning.
I need a high pivot CVT. What should my chainstay length be?
If you asked Pivot it would be 435
This seems pretty reasonable, just saw a clip of Dario riding it in a public group ride, so the release seems imminent.
How many of those DH teams do you think would be running gearboxes right now if there wasn't a €100k carrot being dangled before them?
Why don’t DGI just spec electronic suspension to cancel out the inefficiency of gearboxes, are they stupid?
Is 100k actually a carrot? Hardware development is expensive, I'm certain Atherton didn't developed their gearbox bike for less than 100k. I feel like riding a winning platform is more valuable than the prize money.
Getting weight in the bottom bracket area is currently en vogue anyway and due to their production technique I don't think it was that much of a hussle to get it done, so I think the carrot is working for Atherton.
Probably more valueable is the free marketing and the attention their getting - plus it makes them seem more innovative as well.
Probably true, but it can't be ignored either. It's certainly an awful coincidence...
I would dare to guess that people who struggle with derailleur damage are riding right foot forward. I ride with left foot forward and right foot is effectively protecting the mech, it also makes me more aware of potential obstacles that could hit it, because I don't want to hit the rear pedal with it either.
Gates also sponsors the teams that are running the gearbox / belt. I suspect cash was involved, not just product.
I ride left foot forward and I’ve gone through plenty of derailleur hangers.
A better question is if any DH bikes would still have derailleurs if you didn't have massive relationships between SRAM, Shimano and the big brands.
Moving a bunch of weight off the rear axle to an enclosed system under the bb is perfect for DH.
That $100k was also for the rider not the team wasn't it?
Yes, but it's likely some contracts have the team taking a certain percentage of the winnings.
Hear me out, a little solenoid integrated into the shock to extend a high pivot design when you pedal, call it the inchworm drive, print money.
Dh rear mechs & cassettes are pretty dang light.
How's your right pedal looking?
Taken from PB, new TRP brakes in the works (or at least calipers)
Ha, I ride left forward, often break derailleurs, and since I put flat pedals on the ebike I've bashed and broken two right pedals!
I never thought to put two and two together
Imagine strapping a pound of weight to your front fork axle... bet it's a pretty noticeable effect on suspension performance
Not a bad point. I suppose that's why all these racers on gear boxes are doing so well
Yeah, Hattie Harnden sucks doesn't she
I too am a left foot forward guy. I have had pretty good luck over the years with derailleurs and hangers. If all of a sudden, they were gone, a whole new world of line choices would open up for me. I think I have always given an extra bit of caution to that side of the bike. Also, would not mind the improved rear suspension feel without that additional weight back there.
Color me gearbox curious for sure.
Not even just suspension performance, I would bet entire bike feel. I have a hardtail with sliding dropouts that I can set up with a drivetrain or single speed. Without considering pedaling experience, in 1x10 mode it feels more planted and damped, but in 1x1 mode it feels way more poppy and easier to throw around with less weight back there.
Oh
I'll get excited when it's on Asa, Gwin and Anna's bikes
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker