Why haven't we seen more bikes with that Lal Supre Drive? I'd much rather have that than gear box or regular derailleur if I could have...
Why haven't we seen more bikes with that Lal Supre Drive? I'd much rather have that than gear box or regular derailleur if I could have something that wasn't a short travel bike or a 40 lb nicolai.
What reviews have been done haven't been particularly positive. It's an interesting concept, but as noted shifting is slow on the system due to the increased...
What reviews have been done haven't been particularly positive. It's an interesting concept, but as noted shifting is slow on the system due to the increased chainwrap on the cassette. Then for suspension design you're pretty limited in your ability to design it into different suspension platforms. As my boss is kinda over apt to say, the juice may not be worth the squeeze.
I've actually been thinking about it for the past few days, does it really have to be positioned as it is and have an idler? Couldn't...
I've actually been thinking about it for the past few days, does it really have to be positioned as it is and have an idler? Couldn't you massage it into a shape where the chain goes directly onto the front chainring and there's a sort of derailler cage with two pulleys doing the tensioning and handling chain length through the gears somewhere between the front ring and the cassette (ala what Pinion does with their tensioner at the end of the day)? And have the derailleur then mounted behind or below the axle, not in front of it?
What if we tried putting a small derailleur on the front cogs, may be just like 2-3 gears, then a 5-7 speed cassette on the rear with another smaller derailleur? Same ratios but better weight distribution?
What if we tried putting a small derailleur on the front cogs, may be just like 2-3 gears, then a 5-7 speed cassette on the rear...
What if we tried putting a small derailleur on the front cogs, may be just like 2-3 gears, then a 5-7 speed cassette on the rear with another smaller derailleur? Same ratios but better weight distribution?
What if all the gears were in a container in the middle of the bike by your feet?
Neo + gearbox I’ve been thinking the same thing.. Neo + gearbox + Aggressor in the back Assegai in the front (Not a DHF lol). There’s been some...
Neo + gearbox I’ve been thinking the same thing..
Neo + gearbox + Aggressor in the back Assegai in the front (Not a DHF lol).
There’s been some Neo hate, but I’m drinking the Kool-aid. It’s been a huge innovation for my type of gettin-er done.
I’m joking, appreciate that it’s not clear over text. There was a long inane discussion about this previously; of course one can choose to spec lighter tires, less draggy hubs or pound one less post ride beer to be more efficient but none of that is relevant to a discussion on friction losses in a gearbox.
@sspomer@jeff.brines Really enjoyed the podcast especially the bits on how some of these gearboxes work. I agree that it’s unlikely they’ll come to pedal bikes that you actually want to Pedal- years and capital have gone in to CVT gearboxes to get them to where they are and if it were easy to reduce friction losses of meshing gears significantly lower, they would have done it already.
What if we tried putting a small derailleur on the front cogs, may be just like 2-3 gears, then a 5-7 speed cassette on the rear...
What if we tried putting a small derailleur on the front cogs, may be just like 2-3 gears, then a 5-7 speed cassette on the rear with another smaller derailleur? Same ratios but better weight distribution?
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three different gear "ranges" using the front shifter- one for climbing, one for descending, and one for everything in between. And the chain alignment could be so much straighter without having to pack all your gears onto one super wide cassette.
I wonder why no one's thought of that yet? I can't think of any downsides.
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three...
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three different gear "ranges" using the front shifter- one for climbing, one for descending, and one for everything in between. And the chain alignment could be so much straighter without having to pack all your gears onto one super wide cassette.
I wonder why no one's thought of that yet? I can't think of any downsides.
In all seriousness, I’d like to see what/how good a 2026 2x8 drivetrain would be if sram or shimano put some serious resources into development.
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling...
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling resistance gauges in our brains are not very trustworthy. I'm not convinced that radial tires roll slower because the only evidence we have is that they feel like they roll slower.
21mm tires pumped up to 120 psi feel fast as hell on asphalt. As you go faster, you get more and more vibration feedback from the tire, giving the sensation of greater and greater speed. A 32mm tubeless GP5000 pumped up to 60 psi is going to feel dead, damped, and sluggish by comparison. It's going to feel like there's a lot more tire tread on the road with the 32 (because there is), but that doesn't mean it has more rolling resistance in practice, because frictional rolling resistance is only one of many factors affecting the actual on-bike rolling resistance of tires. The reason we were trapped on horrible skinny road bike tires for decades is that the feedback riders were getting from their own internal rolling resistance gauge in their brains happened to line up with the results that the lab was getting back from their bad rolling resistance test methodology. The two flawed measurement systems were in agreement.
I bring that up because that story reminds me of the descriptions I keep hearing from radial tire users and how claim to know that their radial tires "roll slower." I've heard many people say that there's more of the tread in contact with the ground, and that it feels dead, damped, and sluggish, just like the 32mm GP5000 in my example above.
The difference is that (to my knowledge) we don't have any rolling resistance data of any sort to point to regarding that new crop of radial tires. We only have data from the flawed internal rolling resistance gauge located in people's brains. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying there's no compelling reason to conclude that they're right.
And if someone can share a link to rolling resistance data for new radial tires, I'm all ears.
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more...
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more just that it's limited than flawed, which I get that you understand, but I think a lot of people don't.
Enduro mag did test radial tires. Unfortunately BRR voting is dominated by roadies and so they don't produce any data on gravity tires really, and only just cover XC tires.
They showed that in their testing the Magic Mary (the only tread pattern available in radial and non-radial) was ~5w slower in the radial form. However keep in mind I think Schwalbe said they tweaked the compounds for the radial tires to help limit the losses from going radial. You can also see the bigger difference by far seems to be ultra soft vs soft rather than radial vs traditional. The Albert Radial loses 13w going from soft to ultra soft in the same gravity casing (but the size is a bit different which in most other tests doesn't appear to be that significant). The Magic Mary actually tested faster than most of the maxxgrip tires. Maxxis tires though tend to test slow pretty much across the board though so that's not really saying much imo.
For someone like Amaury Pierron in Korea I don't know how he could avoid the radial tire. I think generally in DH racing that 5w difference is not a big consideration. But for someone who hates pedaling, it's likely noticeable, and might not be worth it. Especially in like hardpack land without a bunch of gravel on top.
Test that became pointless in the radial/normal difference since they run the radial version at the same pressure, something nobody does.
Sorry to dredge this back up, but it was a very interesting discussion that died off.
First, I think it's always worth remembering that "radials" aren't Bordeaux or tequila. I wouldn't fault any brand too much for labeling any new tires as "radials" if the casing happened to be a little bit less diagonal than the previous one. We really don't know what we're saying when we use the term "radial."
Second, and putting racing aside, I think there are two really practical ways to evaluate radials.
For a given level of grip, will radials get me to the top faster? In other words, can the tire can have a harder compound and faster rolling tread, can pump it up more, and will the combination of all those things cause the tire to grip like my current setup on the descents but rolls faster on the climbs.
For a given level of climbing efficiency (probably defined as gravel roads or relatively smooth climbing trails), will radials give me more grip. Of course, you'd have to define grip on the spectrum of cornering versus roots and rocks, etc.
The problem with trying to do informal, bro-science is that any brand not adjusting the compound and tread for "radial" casings would seem to be doing it wrong - almost like a frame manufacturer not having different rear centers across the size range. You'd really need to find a traditional vs. radial tire that has the same compound and tread to even attempt any tests on the rolling efficiency of radials, and then you'd have to wonder about what "radial" means across different brands.
I'm probably going to read all this forum and other reviews, and then chicken-out and revert to combinations of HR3, DHR2, Dissector, and Forecaster across my various bikes. I don't have the patience to fairly test a dozen different tires, and none of the manufacturers are doing a good job of giving me a simple paradigm to decide which of their casings, treads, and compounds fit my riding the best.
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three...
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three different gear "ranges" using the front shifter- one for climbing, one for descending, and one for everything in between. And the chain alignment could be so much straighter without having to pack all your gears onto one super wide cassette.
I wonder why no one's thought of that yet? I can't think of any downsides.
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three...
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three different gear "ranges" using the front shifter- one for climbing, one for descending, and one for everything in between. And the chain alignment could be so much straighter without having to pack all your gears onto one super wide cassette.
I wonder why no one's thought of that yet? I can't think of any downsides.
After life happened I’m currently on a 3x9 GT avalanche. 26”. Literally pulled out of the scrap metal bin from a family member. The old shimano hydraulic disc brakes didn’t even need a bleed. Only needed the front quick release axle. First bike I have after being off bikes for over 4 years. After 25 years of riding.
First of all, be glad that the front derailleurs are gone. 2nd, bikes are fun. Period.
Yes, I wanna be on a full swish bike again, 29” or mullet. But I have a bike. When I swap to skinny tires it works well to commute, too. I can leave the car and get some miles in on the way to work. I saw the bike geometry chat. I didn’t even bother to start reading. Hopefully things will change and I can take advantage of the used bike market soon. Until then I’m having fun on the old bike. And surprisingly enough, I don’t even have to choose to have fun. But looking forward to a 1x drivetrain lol
Friction loss = more watts output to get to the top.
Smart suspension = less watts to get to the top.
Maybe it all equalizes at some some point? I’m with you I’ll never know. Gearboxes are not for me. I prefer to be self sufficient. I prefer to be able to do field repairs and self rescue to get home after a mechanical. And… I don’t want the friction caused by the gear box. Also appreciates the podcast- keep em coming.
I’m terrible at this so can Someone photoshop a cassette and derailleur on the cranks/front triangle and the chainring on the rear hub to please the gearbox and cassette lovers. Boom
What reviews have been done haven't been particularly positive. It's an interesting concept, but as noted shifting is slow on the system due to the increased...
What reviews have been done haven't been particularly positive. It's an interesting concept, but as noted shifting is slow on the system due to the increased chainwrap on the cassette. Then for suspension design you're pretty limited in your ability to design it into different suspension platforms. As my boss is kinda over apt to say, the juice may not be worth the squeeze.
I've actually been thinking about it for the past few days, does it really have to be positioned as it is and have an idler? Couldn't...
I've actually been thinking about it for the past few days, does it really have to be positioned as it is and have an idler? Couldn't you massage it into a shape where the chain goes directly onto the front chainring and there's a sort of derailler cage with two pulleys doing the tensioning and handling chain length through the gears somewhere between the front ring and the cassette (ala what Pinion does with their tensioner at the end of the day)? And have the derailleur then mounted behind or below the axle, not in front of it?
What if we tried putting a small derailleur on the front cogs, may be just like 2-3 gears, then a 5-7 speed cassette on the rear...
What if we tried putting a small derailleur on the front cogs, may be just like 2-3 gears, then a 5-7 speed cassette on the rear with another smaller derailleur? Same ratios but better weight distribution?
how about a series hybrid, like the Also TM-B. There's no mechanical connection between rider input and what the drive unit does. All gear ratios are "simulated" by the motor. I wonder if this would be efficient enough to NOT use a battery, just transfer all rider power to the motor instantaneously. You can solve the problems of chain/derailleur/unsprung weight on the rear axle all at once too.
John Karrasch (@flexfitbyjohn on Instagram) is doing real world rolling resistance testing (using Chung method) of the current crop of XC and gravel tyres. He’s dabbled...
John Karrasch (@flexfitbyjohn on Instagram) is doing real world rolling resistance testing (using Chung method) of the current crop of XC and gravel tyres. He’s dabbled with trail casing of XC tread like BRR has, but not into the trail, enduro, DH etc type tyres that this forum is normally interested in. I’ll ask him if he’s interested in this current question of radial RR.
I could give this a go, would back to back race sim laps be enough to provide accurate results? At least in a way that it...
I could give this a go, would back to back race sim laps be enough to provide accurate results? At least in a way that it is consistently one way or the other?
It depends on what question you are looking to answer. Race sim will tell you which tire you are faster on. If you want to know...
It depends on what question you are looking to answer. Race sim will tell you which tire you are faster on. If you want to know about rolling speed of radial Mary vs standard Mary for instance then Chung method can get you some numbers, but it's very difficult to do, especially offroad. Chung method assumes you are accurately repeating, so basically you can't use the brakes and things like that. The Golden cheetah software does have a tool to help with analysis though.
The simplest way to compare rolling speed is with a section of trail with a U shaped elevation profile on a surface that is representative. You start from a standstill, coast down, and then finish by coasting back uphill and record where you stopped. Obviously you want to be as consistent as possible with how you do it.
When I've done this here, it has been kind of crazy how consistent the finishing position is despite traveling ~150m. It's very convincing because you can finish in the same spot within a few inches 5 times, swap only tires and now your finishing clusters shifts by feet or meters. However you don't get numbers, just a ranking. The hardest part is honestly finding the section of trail. If you can find two sections of trail, one with roots/rocks that the tire has to absorb and another smooth to see how the radial tires compare, that would be fascinating (if it works). Otherwise on smooth trail, in my experience, you're just going to see the order the drum testing shows.
Flexfitbyjohn I think does most of his testing on a small loop in a park that's flat. I think he tested on a mtb trail once, because he said he found the perfect section of trail (it was a climb IIRC) after looking and thinking about it for like a year. It's really hard, it's very impressive what he's doing.
I want to add to the tire rolling resistance convo from a few days ago (missed it because I was riding bikes all week, wtfff). I think the perceived slowness of radial tires is due to the weight. I have the latest Specialized radials. They are slow because they weigh 1300g each. I have another bike with GRID trail casing (~1000g each) Butcher/Eliminator combo (same tread pattern) and a wheelset that weighs ~50g more than the radial tires so I can A/B test this back to back, at the same pressures quite easily (Specialized recommends running your normal pressure on the radials). The radial tires feel like pedaling a Double Down Assegai. You just end up going slower. Important note: I have not tried the Schwalbes, and I know those tend to squish out more on the ground, so that could make them feel even slower.
TL:DR the current crop of radial tires are slow because they are heavy. The verdict on lighter casing radials is still out.
Well, you would have to compare the spec radials to spec gravity tires, not grid trail since they are gravity tires and would weigh the same.
I know a bunch of people on Schwalbe trail radials and they love them. Same with Schwalbe gravity. Only had one friend who complained about them being slow and giving up on them. And he def was on trails because he doesn't ever us dh casing, even when he really, really should. But he has lucked out so far, so good for him.
Well, you would have to compare the spec radials to spec gravity tires, not grid trail since they are gravity tires and would weigh the same. I...
Well, you would have to compare the spec radials to spec gravity tires, not grid trail since they are gravity tires and would weigh the same.
I know a bunch of people on Schwalbe trail radials and they love them. Same with Schwalbe gravity. Only had one friend who complained about them being slow and giving up on them. And he def was on trails because he doesn't ever us dh casing, even when he really, really should. But he has lucked out so far, so good for him.
my entirely non-scientific ride on a friends bike with GRID gravity (non-radial) tires, they felt similar when climbing. Just heavy and slow. You only notice a difference on the descent where the radial tires seem to feel more damped and have grip in more situations. So overall a good impression. I think if the benefits carry over to true "trail" spec tires that weigh 1000-1100g that will take over the market from "normal" casing tires.
I’ll never forget the time I was course marshaling an event with a huge SRAM presence. Title sponsor of the race actually. They had just rolled out 2X drivetrains. A very fast sponsored racer had a massive front ring chainsuck right in front of me…
I’m joking, appreciate that it’s not clear over text. There was a long inane discussion about this previously; of course one can choose to spec lighter...
I’m joking, appreciate that it’s not clear over text. There was a long inane discussion about this previously; of course one can choose to spec lighter tires, less draggy hubs or pound one less post ride beer to be more efficient but none of that is relevant to a discussion on friction losses in a gearbox.
@sspomer@jeff.brines Really enjoyed the podcast especially the bits on how some of these gearboxes work. I agree that it’s unlikely they’ll come to pedal bikes that you actually want to Pedal- years and capital have gone in to CVT gearboxes to get them to where they are and if it were easy to reduce friction losses of meshing gears significantly lower, they would have done it already.
Exciting to finally see what’s up with it! Edit*- realized my screenshot didn't include names. This is WRPs one we've been seeing for last couple years.
Exciting to finally see what’s up with it!
Edit*- realized my screenshot didn't include names. This is WRPs one we've been seeing for last couple years.
Context? not familiar with the O-chain mechanism, but whatever this is, looks like it allows force to only be transmitted one way (pedaling vs pedal kick back)
Exciting to finally see what’s up with it! Edit*- realized my screenshot didn't include names. This is WRPs one we've been seeing for last couple years.
Exciting to finally see what’s up with it!
Edit*- realized my screenshot didn't include names. This is WRPs one we've been seeing for last couple years.
Context? not familiar with the O-chain mechanism, but whatever this is, looks like it allows force to only be transmitted one way (pedaling vs pedal kick...
Context? not familiar with the O-chain mechanism, but whatever this is, looks like it allows force to only be transmitted one way (pedaling vs pedal kick back)
Allows for elimination of kickback while maintaining the anti squat
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three...
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three different gear "ranges" using the front shifter- one for climbing, one for descending, and one for everything in between. And the chain alignment could be so much straighter without having to pack all your gears onto one super wide cassette.
I wonder why no one's thought of that yet? I can't think of any downsides.
In all seriousness, I’d like to see what/how good a 2026 2x8 drivetrain would be if sram or shimano put some serious resources into development.
The last gen Shimano 2x front mtb derailleurs were actually ridiculously good IMO. The horizontal swing rather than vertical made set up ridiculously easy once you got over your 20+ years of front derailleurs operating in the same general fashion knowledge, Simplex be damned. Getting rid of that vertical swing seemed to have nixxed a lot of opp for the chain to get derailed poorly.
Why haven't we seen more bikes with that Lal Supre Drive? I'd much rather have that than gear box or regular derailleur if I could have...
Why haven't we seen more bikes with that Lal Supre Drive? I'd much rather have that than gear box or regular derailleur if I could have something that wasn't a short travel bike or a 40 lb nicolai.
What reviews have been done haven't been particularly positive. It's an interesting concept, but as noted shifting is slow on the system due to the increased...
What reviews have been done haven't been particularly positive. It's an interesting concept, but as noted shifting is slow on the system due to the increased chainwrap on the cassette. Then for suspension design you're pretty limited in your ability to design it into different suspension platforms. As my boss is kinda over apt to say, the juice may not be worth the squeeze.
I've actually been thinking about it for the past few days, does it really have to be positioned as it is and have an idler? Couldn't...
I've actually been thinking about it for the past few days, does it really have to be positioned as it is and have an idler? Couldn't you massage it into a shape where the chain goes directly onto the front chainring and there's a sort of derailler cage with two pulleys doing the tensioning and handling chain length through the gears somewhere between the front ring and the cassette (ala what Pinion does with their tensioner at the end of the day)? And have the derailleur then mounted behind or below the axle, not in front of it?
Certainly there's another way to skin this cat but who'd really want to invest the time to do so? From a scaling standpoint this is just way too niche for an established drivetrain manufacturer to want to deal with, to say nothing of the bike co's needed to sign on board who'd need to design a complete new bike line to take advantage of it. If anything this shows why Shimano's direct mount failed and Sram's didn't. Sram gave people two reasons to migrate to UDH, Shimano just had one for theirs.
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three...
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three different gear "ranges" using the front shifter- one for climbing, one for descending, and one for everything in between. And the chain alignment could be so much straighter without having to pack all your gears onto one super wide cassette.
I wonder why no one's thought of that yet? I can't think of any downsides.
The last gen Shimano 2x front mtb derailleurs were actually ridiculously good IMO. The horizontal swing rather than vertical made set up ridiculously easy once you...
The last gen Shimano 2x front mtb derailleurs were actually ridiculously good IMO. The horizontal swing rather than vertical made set up ridiculously easy once you got over your 20+ years of front derailleurs operating in the same general fashion knowledge, Simplex be damned. Getting rid of that vertical swing seemed to have nixxed a lot of opp for the chain to get derailed poorly.
I think if we want to revisit a 2x8, it might make more sense to have something like the 2-speed hubs unicyclists use (KH-Schlumpf). One speed should be essentially zero loss, and the other a single gear stage, so probably 97+% efficient.
It might be made to fit in a BB-shell, so perhaps compatible with existing frames. Not sure if gearing can be made that compact though. This would eliminate the front DR, and reduce the size and weight of the cassette and rear DR, and potentially offer finer gear ratios.
What if we tried putting a small derailleur on the front cogs, may be just like 2-3 gears, then a 5-7 speed cassette on the rear with another smaller derailleur? Same ratios but better weight distribution?
What if all the gears were in a container in the middle of the bike by your feet?
Was this for the existing/old saint or new stuff?
Neo + gearbox I’ve been thinking the same thing..
Neo + gearbox + Aggressor in the back Assegai in the front (Not a DHF lol).
There’s been some Neo hate, but I’m drinking the Kool-aid. It’s been a huge innovation for my type of gettin-er done.
I’m joking, appreciate that it’s not clear over text. There was a long inane discussion about this previously; of course one can choose to spec lighter tires, less draggy hubs or pound one less post ride beer to be more efficient but none of that is relevant to a discussion on friction losses in a gearbox.
@sspomer @jeff.brines Really enjoyed the podcast especially the bits on how some of these gearboxes work. I agree that it’s unlikely they’ll come to pedal bikes that you actually want to Pedal- years and capital have gone in to CVT gearboxes to get them to where they are and if it were easy to reduce friction losses of meshing gears significantly lower, they would have done it already.
Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three different gear "ranges" using the front shifter- one for climbing, one for descending, and one for everything in between. And the chain alignment could be so much straighter without having to pack all your gears onto one super wide cassette.
I wonder why no one's thought of that yet? I can't think of any downsides.
In all seriousness, I’d like to see what/how good a 2026 2x8 drivetrain would be if sram or shimano put some serious resources into development.
Sorry to dredge this back up, but it was a very interesting discussion that died off.
First, I think it's always worth remembering that "radials" aren't Bordeaux or tequila. I wouldn't fault any brand too much for labeling any new tires as "radials" if the casing happened to be a little bit less diagonal than the previous one. We really don't know what we're saying when we use the term "radial."
Second, and putting racing aside, I think there are two really practical ways to evaluate radials.
The problem with trying to do informal, bro-science is that any brand not adjusting the compound and tread for "radial" casings would seem to be doing it wrong - almost like a frame manufacturer not having different rear centers across the size range. You'd really need to find a traditional vs. radial tire that has the same compound and tread to even attempt any tests on the rolling efficiency of radials, and then you'd have to wonder about what "radial" means across different brands.
I'm probably going to read all this forum and other reviews, and then chicken-out and revert to combinations of HR3, DHR2, Dissector, and Forecaster across my various bikes. I don't have the patience to fairly test a dozen different tires, and none of the manufacturers are doing a good job of giving me a simple paradigm to decide which of their casings, treads, and compounds fit my riding the best.
2x drive trains were horrible, end of story.
After life happened I’m currently on a 3x9 GT avalanche. 26”. Literally pulled out of the scrap metal bin from a family member. The old shimano hydraulic disc brakes didn’t even need a bleed. Only needed the front quick release axle. First bike I have after being off bikes for over 4 years. After 25 years of riding.
First of all, be glad that the front derailleurs are gone. 2nd, bikes are fun. Period.
Yes, I wanna be on a full swish bike again, 29” or mullet. But I have a bike. When I swap to skinny tires it works well to commute, too. I can leave the car and get some miles in on the way to work.
I saw the bike geometry chat. I didn’t even bother to start reading. Hopefully things will change and I can take advantage of the used bike market soon. Until then I’m having fun on the old bike. And surprisingly enough, I don’t even have to choose to have fun. But looking forward to a 1x drivetrain lol
Friction loss = more watts output to get to the top.
Smart suspension = less watts to get to the top.
Maybe it all equalizes at some some point? I’m with you I’ll never know. Gearboxes are not for me. I prefer to be self sufficient. I prefer to be able to do field repairs and self rescue to get home after a mechanical. And… I don’t want the friction caused by the gear box. Also appreciates the podcast- keep em coming.
Any info on this damper from ohlins? Still haven’t heard about the new shock.
I’m terrible at this so can Someone photoshop a cassette and derailleur on the cranks/front triangle and the chainring on the rear hub to please the gearbox and cassette lovers. Boom
how about a series hybrid, like the Also TM-B. There's no mechanical connection between rider input and what the drive unit does. All gear ratios are "simulated" by the motor. I wonder if this would be efficient enough to NOT use a battery, just transfer all rider power to the motor instantaneously. You can solve the problems of chain/derailleur/unsprung weight on the rear axle all at once too.
I want to add to the tire rolling resistance convo from a few days ago (missed it because I was riding bikes all week, wtfff). I think the perceived slowness of radial tires is due to the weight. I have the latest Specialized radials. They are slow because they weigh 1300g each. I have another bike with GRID trail casing (~1000g each) Butcher/Eliminator combo (same tread pattern) and a wheelset that weighs ~50g more than the radial tires so I can A/B test this back to back, at the same pressures quite easily (Specialized recommends running your normal pressure on the radials). The radial tires feel like pedaling a Double Down Assegai. You just end up going slower. Important note: I have not tried the Schwalbes, and I know those tend to squish out more on the ground, so that could make them feel even slower.
TL:DR the current crop of radial tires are slow because they are heavy. The verdict on lighter casing radials is still out.
Well, you would have to compare the spec radials to spec gravity tires, not grid trail since they are gravity tires and would weigh the same.
I know a bunch of people on Schwalbe trail radials and they love them. Same with Schwalbe gravity. Only had one friend who complained about them being slow and giving up on them. And he def was on trails because he doesn't ever us dh casing, even when he really, really should. But he has lucked out so far, so good for him.
my entirely non-scientific ride on a friends bike with GRID gravity (non-radial) tires, they felt similar when climbing. Just heavy and slow. You only notice a difference on the descent where the radial tires seem to feel more damped and have grip in more situations. So overall a good impression. I think if the benefits carry over to true "trail" spec tires that weigh 1000-1100g that will take over the market from "normal" casing tires.
I’ll never forget the time I was course marshaling an event with a huge SRAM presence. Title sponsor of the race actually. They had just rolled out 2X drivetrains. A very fast sponsored racer had a massive front ring chainsuck right in front of me…
I was like “nope. Not buying it.” 🤣
It's actually @jeff.brines and @TEAMROBOT in the BS podcast, not @sspomer.
Exciting to finally see what’s up with it!
Edit*- realized my screenshot didn't include names. This is WRPs one we've been seeing for last couple years.
Context? not familiar with the O-chain mechanism, but whatever this is, looks like it allows force to only be transmitted one way (pedaling vs pedal kick back)
Is that photo with a cover removed to show how it works? I can't imagine you'd want teeth exposed in a MTB context.
Yes
Allows for elimination of kickback while maintaining the anti squat
Is this just the wrp centrehub without the cover on or something new?
It is his newest unreleased version that is quite different than the old one
The last gen Shimano 2x front mtb derailleurs were actually ridiculously good IMO. The horizontal swing rather than vertical made set up ridiculously easy once you got over your 20+ years of front derailleurs operating in the same general fashion knowledge, Simplex be damned. Getting rid of that vertical swing seemed to have nixxed a lot of opp for the chain to get derailed poorly.
Certainly there's another way to skin this cat but who'd really want to invest the time to do so? From a scaling standpoint this is just way too niche for an established drivetrain manufacturer to want to deal with, to say nothing of the bike co's needed to sign on board who'd need to design a complete new bike line to take advantage of it. If anything this shows why Shimano's direct mount failed and Sram's didn't. Sram gave people two reasons to migrate to UDH, Shimano just had one for theirs.
I think if we want to revisit a 2x8, it might make more sense to have something like the 2-speed hubs unicyclists use (KH-Schlumpf). One speed should be essentially zero loss, and the other a single gear stage, so probably 97+% efficient.
It might be made to fit in a BB-shell, so perhaps compatible with existing frames. Not sure if gearing can be made that compact though. This would eliminate the front DR, and reduce the size and weight of the cassette and rear DR, and potentially offer finer gear ratios.
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker