Their newest bike is an aluminum slopestyle hardtail. I also got (unofficial) confirmation it's a new Chromag frame from someone at my LBS today, but no...
Their newest bike is an aluminum slopestyle hardtail. I also got (unofficial) confirmation it's a new Chromag frame from someone at my LBS today, but no details.
Go search release or something in their search tab.
Their newest bike is an aluminum slopestyle hardtail. I also got (unofficial) confirmation it's a new Chromag frame from someone at my LBS today, but no...
Their newest bike is an aluminum slopestyle hardtail. I also got (unofficial) confirmation it's a new Chromag frame from someone at my LBS today, but no details.
I dont know if this is exactly the place for this but I cannot find any info about this. People mention that these gearbox belted drivetrains feel inefficient in some scenarios because of the belt and gears. Why do we use belts and not a chain for this? As well, why do people say the inefficiencies are greater in some gears than others? Id appreciate an explanation.
I dont know if this is exactly the place for this but I cannot find any info about this. People mention that these gearbox belted drivetrains...
I dont know if this is exactly the place for this but I cannot find any info about this. People mention that these gearbox belted drivetrains feel inefficient in some scenarios because of the belt and gears. Why do we use belts and not a chain for this? As well, why do people say the inefficiencies are greater in some gears than others? Id appreciate an explanation.
In general the comments about gearboxes themselves get comments about inefficiencies. Whichever way you spin it, there are more bearings and seals involved with a gearbox plus a plethora of gear pairs (either loaded or unloaded) which all add to additional drag. In the case of Rohloff you have planetary gears (lots and lots of bearings and gears) while Pinion is quite a lot simpler. Still in that case you have a 2-stage geared gearbox, either a 3x3, 3x4 or a 3x6 layout (for 9, 12 or 18 speed variants) where you at least have to support the input, the intermediate and the output shafts with bearings, seal everything and have all the gears constantly meshed (there are selectors engaging the 2 gear pairs giving you a final drive ratio) plus you're sloshing around oil.
While smooth, maintenance free, compact, etc., it also increases drag, no matter how efficient it is all done. Standard cassette-sprocket-chain drivetrains are, for better or for worse REALLY efficient and really well optimized in this day and age.
As for belts, I guess some more drag could be present, partly from a higher tension required to make it run (as mentioned by a few people here on the forums) and another factor would be the fact that it's rubber, which means meshing with the drive rings will inherently have more friction associated with it compared to a chain. The benefit is everything else (movement of the belt, what we call chain slap with standard drivetrains) will be muted as the fact it's made form rubber also means it's damped a lot better, it's less noisy, etc.
This is all generalisation, I don't have experience with either gearboxes or belt drivetrains...
This is the (Horst) linkage, defining the axle path:This drives the shock:If it's the same colour, it's a single piece.The chainstay of the horst link has...
This is the (Horst) linkage, defining the axle path:
This drives the shock:
If it's the same colour, it's a single piece.
The chainstay of the horst link has an extension, to which the red short link attaches and pulls down on it to rotate the silver rocker, driving the shock.
Soooooo it's a linkage driven four bar? Are there any more single pivots on the WCDH now? With the nukeproof dissent gone, that leaves just the session, right?
EDIT: looking at pictures of it it is also linkage driven, there's a BB concentric rocker (similar to the Norco Range) but then a driving link and another rocker mounted in front of the BB to drive the shock. Something along the lines of what Knolly does.
Fine detective work sir. It's not like we haven't been talking about it for the last 10 pages.
Now that it's been posted, does anyone else think that it's kinda weird that frameworks are pretty much the sole tester of the fox neo stuff? Also, if it doesn't have the HSC/HSR because its the same damper as the other neo shocks, will it still be called the Float X2?
I dont know if this is exactly the place for this but I cannot find any info about this. People mention that these gearbox belted drivetrains...
I dont know if this is exactly the place for this but I cannot find any info about this. People mention that these gearbox belted drivetrains feel inefficient in some scenarios because of the belt and gears. Why do we use belts and not a chain for this? As well, why do people say the inefficiencies are greater in some gears than others? Id appreciate an explanation.
In general the comments about gearboxes themselves get comments about inefficiencies. Whichever way you spin it, there are more bearings and seals involved with a gearbox...
In general the comments about gearboxes themselves get comments about inefficiencies. Whichever way you spin it, there are more bearings and seals involved with a gearbox plus a plethora of gear pairs (either loaded or unloaded) which all add to additional drag. In the case of Rohloff you have planetary gears (lots and lots of bearings and gears) while Pinion is quite a lot simpler. Still in that case you have a 2-stage geared gearbox, either a 3x3, 3x4 or a 3x6 layout (for 9, 12 or 18 speed variants) where you at least have to support the input, the intermediate and the output shafts with bearings, seal everything and have all the gears constantly meshed (there are selectors engaging the 2 gear pairs giving you a final drive ratio) plus you're sloshing around oil.
While smooth, maintenance free, compact, etc., it also increases drag, no matter how efficient it is all done. Standard cassette-sprocket-chain drivetrains are, for better or for worse REALLY efficient and really well optimized in this day and age.
As for belts, I guess some more drag could be present, partly from a higher tension required to make it run (as mentioned by a few people here on the forums) and another factor would be the fact that it's rubber, which means meshing with the drive rings will inherently have more friction associated with it compared to a chain. The benefit is everything else (movement of the belt, what we call chain slap with standard drivetrains) will be muted as the fact it's made form rubber also means it's damped a lot better, it's less noisy, etc.
This is all generalisation, I don't have experience with either gearboxes or belt drivetrains...
Thank you for the explanation. Im kind of incapable of imagining these gear boxes without taking it apart myself or seeing a really well done exploded diagram. All of that made sense though. Primoz saves the day again
Now that it's been posted, does anyone else think that it's kinda weird that frameworks are pretty much the sole tester of the fox neo stuff...
Now that it's been posted, does anyone else think that it's kinda weird that frameworks are pretty much the sole tester of the fox neo stuff? Also, if it doesn't have the HSC/HSR because its the same damper as the other neo shocks, will it still be called the Float X2?
the 2 references the twin tube damper not adjustments. At least that's how it was explained to me. The dpx2 was twin tube as well, which is why some people felt it was a step back releasing the float x.
I used to ride moto with an engineer that worked on gearboxes for a major bike manufacturer. At that time, I had just begun mountain biking and didn't pay much attention to all of the tech.
But I remember him telling me that although there were many real advantages to gearboxes, it simply wasn't possible to improve the efficiency to cassette like levels as gearboxes, by design, would always have more friction as a consequence of the gears meshing, turning clusters, oil, extra bearings and seals.
I'm sure some additional optimization will occur in time but to make a gearbox as efficient as a cassette, well it wouldn't be a gearbox any longer by definition.
What appeals to me, is the micro cassette/ chain/ derailleur in a box in the BB area. I think this makes the most sense when we are working with a 1/4 hp at most and as much power as possible has to make it to the rear wheel.
As far as e-bikes however, that's a different beast when it comes to gearboxes, although at this time I still would not own one.
re: derailleur in a can, found @Dave_Camp's dc special video from 2007 or 8 maybe? (it may be blocked in some countries due to my using destiny's child or ciara or tlc or someone as the background music LOL. if no one can see it, i'll try to get rid of the music)
This is the (Horst) linkage, defining the axle path:This drives the shock:If it's the same colour, it's a single piece.The chainstay of the horst link has...
This is the (Horst) linkage, defining the axle path:
This drives the shock:
If it's the same colour, it's a single piece.
The chainstay of the horst link has an extension, to which the red short link attaches and pulls down on it to rotate the silver rocker, driving the shock.
Soooooo it's a linkage driven four bar? Are there any more single pivots on the WCDH now? With the nukeproof dissent gone, that leaves just the...
Soooooo it's a linkage driven four bar? Are there any more single pivots on the WCDH now? With the nukeproof dissent gone, that leaves just the session, right?
I know that some people might disagree with me on this, but Trek is still using a single pivot lay out. The concentric pivot at the axle doesn't change that. Saracen still make a single pivot, but I don't know if anyone is riding them In the wcdh anymore, probably not. Orbeas new DH bike will probably be a single pivot, same as the trek, concentric axle pivot.
I dont know if this is exactly the place for this but I cannot find any info about this. People mention that these gearbox belted drivetrains...
I dont know if this is exactly the place for this but I cannot find any info about this. People mention that these gearbox belted drivetrains feel inefficient in some scenarios because of the belt and gears. Why do we use belts and not a chain for this? As well, why do people say the inefficiencies are greater in some gears than others? Id appreciate an explanation.
In general the comments about gearboxes themselves get comments about inefficiencies. Whichever way you spin it, there are more bearings and seals involved with a gearbox...
In general the comments about gearboxes themselves get comments about inefficiencies. Whichever way you spin it, there are more bearings and seals involved with a gearbox plus a plethora of gear pairs (either loaded or unloaded) which all add to additional drag. In the case of Rohloff you have planetary gears (lots and lots of bearings and gears) while Pinion is quite a lot simpler. Still in that case you have a 2-stage geared gearbox, either a 3x3, 3x4 or a 3x6 layout (for 9, 12 or 18 speed variants) where you at least have to support the input, the intermediate and the output shafts with bearings, seal everything and have all the gears constantly meshed (there are selectors engaging the 2 gear pairs giving you a final drive ratio) plus you're sloshing around oil.
While smooth, maintenance free, compact, etc., it also increases drag, no matter how efficient it is all done. Standard cassette-sprocket-chain drivetrains are, for better or for worse REALLY efficient and really well optimized in this day and age.
As for belts, I guess some more drag could be present, partly from a higher tension required to make it run (as mentioned by a few people here on the forums) and another factor would be the fact that it's rubber, which means meshing with the drive rings will inherently have more friction associated with it compared to a chain. The benefit is everything else (movement of the belt, what we call chain slap with standard drivetrains) will be muted as the fact it's made form rubber also means it's damped a lot better, it's less noisy, etc.
This is all generalisation, I don't have experience with either gearboxes or belt drivetrains...
Thank you for the explanation. Im kind of incapable of imagining these gear boxes without taking it apart myself or seeing a really well done exploded...
Thank you for the explanation. Im kind of incapable of imagining these gear boxes without taking it apart myself or seeing a really well done exploded diagram. All of that made sense though. Primoz saves the day again
From my understanding, belt is actually more efficient than a chain. Due to less friction, no moving parts and sh!t.
The forementioned drag comes from the gearbox. That said, it's really overblown on the internet. I'd say there's more drag in a regular drivetrain at the end of a big ride, assuming I cleaned and lubed it before.
Go search release or something in their search tab.
The Signature. They did an email newsletter for it an hour ago.
Confirmation about the new aluminum, fs, freeride/park bike came from my shop today.
The Signature (slope hardtail bike) was announced a while ago.
Trunnion DH length with the rotated piggyback.
Any reason for the rotated piggyback? Other than some frame fitment thing?
Just happened across this on Instagram. Love to see stuff like this!
I dont know if this is exactly the place for this but I cannot find any info about this. People mention that these gearbox belted drivetrains feel inefficient in some scenarios because of the belt and gears. Why do we use belts and not a chain for this? As well, why do people say the inefficiencies are greater in some gears than others? Id appreciate an explanation.
In general the comments about gearboxes themselves get comments about inefficiencies. Whichever way you spin it, there are more bearings and seals involved with a gearbox plus a plethora of gear pairs (either loaded or unloaded) which all add to additional drag. In the case of Rohloff you have planetary gears (lots and lots of bearings and gears) while Pinion is quite a lot simpler. Still in that case you have a 2-stage geared gearbox, either a 3x3, 3x4 or a 3x6 layout (for 9, 12 or 18 speed variants) where you at least have to support the input, the intermediate and the output shafts with bearings, seal everything and have all the gears constantly meshed (there are selectors engaging the 2 gear pairs giving you a final drive ratio) plus you're sloshing around oil.
While smooth, maintenance free, compact, etc., it also increases drag, no matter how efficient it is all done. Standard cassette-sprocket-chain drivetrains are, for better or for worse REALLY efficient and really well optimized in this day and age.
As for belts, I guess some more drag could be present, partly from a higher tension required to make it run (as mentioned by a few people here on the forums) and another factor would be the fact that it's rubber, which means meshing with the drive rings will inherently have more friction associated with it compared to a chain. The benefit is everything else (movement of the belt, what we call chain slap with standard drivetrains) will be muted as the fact it's made form rubber also means it's damped a lot better, it's less noisy, etc.
This is all generalisation, I don't have experience with either gearboxes or belt drivetrains...
Carbon
and maybe new saint or xtr stuff as well?
Like Mondraker with the current Summum..."AL ist the best and allows better performance"...Carbon version released just 10 months later :D
Soooooo it's a linkage driven four bar? Are there any more single pivots on the WCDH now? With the nukeproof dissent gone, that leaves just the session, right?
Isn't the Canyon proto also a split pivot?
EDIT: looking at pictures of it it is also linkage driven, there's a BB concentric rocker (similar to the Norco Range) but then a driving link and another rocker mounted in front of the BB to drive the shock. Something along the lines of what Knolly does.
what do we have here 👀
Check out Poirot over here!
Fine detective work sir. It's not like we haven't been talking about it for the last 10 pages.
My understanding is that the orientation of the piggy back has no effect on performance, so it is just a matter of fitment and appearance.
Now that it's been posted, does anyone else think that it's kinda weird that frameworks are pretty much the sole tester of the fox neo stuff? Also, if it doesn't have the HSC/HSR because its the same damper as the other neo shocks, will it still be called the Float X2?
1. NICE! 2. I see a letter from DW coming to someone soon.
clever.
Thank you for the explanation. Im kind of incapable of imagining these gear boxes without taking it apart myself or seeing a really well done exploded diagram. All of that made sense though. Primoz saves the day again
the 2 references the twin tube damper not adjustments. At least that's how it was explained to me. The dpx2 was twin tube as well, which is why some people felt it was a step back releasing the float x.
I used to ride moto with an engineer that worked on gearboxes for a major bike manufacturer. At that time, I had just begun mountain biking and didn't pay much attention to all of the tech.
But I remember him telling me that although there were many real advantages to gearboxes, it simply wasn't possible to improve the efficiency to cassette like levels as gearboxes, by design, would always have more friction as a consequence of the gears meshing, turning clusters, oil, extra bearings and seals.
I'm sure some additional optimization will occur in time but to make a gearbox as efficient as a cassette, well it wouldn't be a gearbox any longer by definition.
What appeals to me, is the micro cassette/ chain/ derailleur in a box in the BB area. I think this makes the most sense when we are working with a 1/4 hp at most and as much power as possible has to make it to the rear wheel.
As far as e-bikes however, that's a different beast when it comes to gearboxes, although at this time I still would not own one.
re: derailleur in a can, found @Dave_Camp's dc special video from 2007 or 8 maybe? (it may be blocked in some countries due to my using destiny's child or ciara or tlc or someone as the background music LOL. if no one can see it, i'll try to get rid of the music)
I know that some people might disagree with me on this, but Trek is still using a single pivot lay out. The concentric pivot at the axle doesn't change that. Saracen still make a single pivot, but I don't know if anyone is riding them In the wcdh anymore, probably not. Orbeas new DH bike will probably be a single pivot, same as the trek, concentric axle pivot.
From my understanding, belt is actually more efficient than a chain. Due to less friction, no moving parts and sh!t.
The forementioned drag comes from the gearbox. That said, it's really overblown on the internet. I'd say there's more drag in a regular drivetrain at the end of a big ride, assuming I cleaned and lubed it before.
Is this it? Cawbofaaibeuh Mondwakeuh?
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation