I also suspect that SRAM told bike manufacturers that UDH was going to be required for future drivetrains (Transmission) even though the general public wasn't told.
Maybe some but not all. I was PM at Canfield Bikes when UDH was announced and that detail was not started. I suspected there was more to the story than selling $15 retail derailleur hangers.
Direct mount transmission. It wasn't really a catch though (unless you like adjustable dropouts), just the ulterior motive of moving everyone to a standardised dropout design.
You are right, but I also think most companies were trying to make their current frames work with the UDH and not come up with a...
You are right, but I also think most companies were trying to make their current frames work with the UDH and not come up with a long-term solution. There is no way you cannot have both.
I also suspect that SRAM told bike manufacturers that UDH was going to be required for future drivetrains (Transmission) even though the general public wasn't told.
For sure. I was told by "someone" "somewhere" (deliberately vague) they were privy to upcoming Sram product information back in spring 2021 without spilling any specific beans. Considering Transmission launched in 2023, it must have been Transmission at the time. This was for the purposes of complete bike builds.
Any talk about better alignment using a UBM is kinda silly. You have concentricity, parallel between axle and the outward mount hole, surface flatness between the mount and frame, in addition to the existing flatness and parallel of a traditional post mount. All in, it seems like more dimensional control is needed rather than less. This from the co that used concave/convex washers to fit between their caliper feet and frame/adapter mounts claiming 'irregular surfaces' at the mount faces while no other co had such issues (at least none that couldn't be remedied by facing the mount as you should a B
and I am calling boooogus. Definitely a trojan horse for something they have up their sleeve. Now, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out with the co's that have already been using a similar design prior to the '21 filing date. Due to prior art/design, this shouldn't have been granted and highlights how screwed/overwhelmed the US Patent Office is. If they decide to litigate against those co's I hope they get the soc media/forum beatdown Knolly did when they went after Intense over the offset seat tube design.
Love Ohlin's "if ain't broke don't fix it" approach to their forks. That TTX18 cartridge is so good I am glad they didn't change it. No marketing non-sense like MOAR shimz etc. I hope they stay this way and soon enough all my forks will be from them.
Any talk about better alignment using a UBM is kinda silly. You have concentricity, parallel between axle and the outward mount hole, surface flatness between the...
Any talk about better alignment using a UBM is kinda silly. You have concentricity, parallel between axle and the outward mount hole, surface flatness between the mount and frame, in addition to the existing flatness and parallel of a traditional post mount. All in, it seems like more dimensional control is needed rather than less. This from the co that used concave/convex washers to fit between their caliper feet and frame/adapter mounts claiming 'irregular surfaces' at the mount faces while no other co had such issues (at least none that couldn't be remedied by facing the mount as you should a B
and I am calling boooogus. Definitely a trojan horse for something they have up their sleeve. Now, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out with the co's that have already been using a similar design prior to the '21 filing date. Due to prior art/design, this shouldn't have been granted and highlights how screwed/overwhelmed the US Patent Office is. If they decide to litigate against those co's I hope they get the soc media/forum beatdown Knolly did when they went after Intense over the offset seat tube design.
The requirements for the hole to mount the UBM to are about the same as the requirements for a dropout in general. Then you need a post to act as a torque brace. That's it.
Facing post mounts is a damn PITA as it requires VERY special tools as opposed to BB/HT reaming/facing. The complexity for a frame designer is, for better or for worse, lower with a (properly executed) UBM.
What I want to know, amongst this discussion of a UBH, is who the hell is managing to strip their brake mount threads? Good lord. You pull...
What I want to know, amongst this discussion of a UBH, is who the hell is managing to strip their brake mount threads?
Good lord. You pull that off, you probably shouldn’t use a stove or knife, either.
I mean, I've cross-threaded a brake mount post on a bike made of swiss cheese before. Wasn't my proudest moment holding a wrench, and it just required a retap.
I also saw someone who came in with the bolts sheared into their brake post mount after a "particularly odd" crash.
I'm just saying, the more parts are replaceable the better.
Looping back to the conversation about USD forks given the team rumours announced today. With Reece Wilson’s AOD racing on the Manitou Dorado (supposedly running an Oleo strut shock??), and IFR on the EXT Vaia, and a new model from an named big brand, USD forks are definitely going to be making waves in 2025. At this rate, Honda definitely needs to resurrect the RN01.
I mean, I've cross-threaded a brake mount post on a bike made of swiss cheese before. Wasn't my proudest moment holding a wrench, and it just...
I mean, I've cross-threaded a brake mount post on a bike made of swiss cheese before. Wasn't my proudest moment holding a wrench, and it just required a retap.
I also saw someone who came in with the bolts sheared into their brake post mount after a "particularly odd" crash.
I'm just saying, the more parts are replaceable the better.
I loved this little detail on the DHR.
The frame was so nicely executed, still my fav DW-Link packaging.
I loved this little detail on the DHR.The frame was so nicely executed, still my fav DW-Link packaging.
I loved this little detail on the DHR.
The frame was so nicely executed, still my fav DW-Link packaging.
That's honestly my favorite solution wherever applicable.
I'm not convinced post mount is a problem that needs addressing - it's been a while since I've seen an issue with one of those. One customer "stripped it", but they had a very short bolt so only stripped the first 3mm of the thread, which was easily worked around with a proper sized bolt. Turner's solution would be awesome though.
Back to rumors - I can't really make out the driveline on the Atherton. I know they've had the video walking around with a pinion, but it's not very clear to me here?
Something everyone has to realize about UBM and UDH is that SRAM is in the business of selling OEM to massive bike companies. Anything SRAM can do to make the process faster and cheaper/better for the OEMs is seen as a win. In the case of Transmission/wireless drivetrains, that is a WIN for OEMs. Say they can shave -5-10 minutes a bike not having to deal with cables, setting stops, tension, etc. They can install a Transmission drivetrain in <5mins, vs. say 10-12min for a cable-actuated version. Now, multiply that times 20,000 MTB builds and you have million(s) of dollars of wages to workers saved. Also, they can make frames cheaper and lighter (dropping things like tube-in-tube, cable ports molded in frames, etc.) *they keep MSRP of frame the same which increases per frame margin (profit).
UBM is likely the same. This will allow frame manufacturers to make frames say $25 cheaper. Now multiply that times 40,000 MTB frames and that's a quick $1 million savings a year. AND the brake posts will be better aligned, and changing rotor sizes will be easier (and faster during OEM builds, as well as they won't need to waste time with washers/longer bolts, etc.).
People think too much from the end consumer or OEM. SRAM is wisely playing to the OEMs with a lot of these moves. AND it also greatly benefits the customer in the long run. UDH is awesome; it's solved the RD hanger problem. AND it allows for direct mount which is a far superior system in terms of robustness and shifting precision.
i thought so too at first. then i did Enhance.gif, and it would appear it is configured with some sort of tensioner pulley that directs the belt upwards towards the main pivot region before back to the rear hub.
i thought so too at first. then i did Enhance.gif, and it would appear it is configured with some sort of tensioner pulley that directs the...
i thought so too at first. then i did Enhance.gif, and it would appear it is configured with some sort of tensioner pulley that directs the belt upwards towards the main pivot region before back to the rear hub.
Something everyone has to realize about UBM and UDH is that SRAM is in the business of selling OEM to massive bike companies. Anything SRAM can...
Something everyone has to realize about UBM and UDH is that SRAM is in the business of selling OEM to massive bike companies. Anything SRAM can do to make the process faster and cheaper/better for the OEMs is seen as a win. In the case of Transmission/wireless drivetrains, that is a WIN for OEMs. Say they can shave -5-10 minutes a bike not having to deal with cables, setting stops, tension, etc. They can install a Transmission drivetrain in <5mins, vs. say 10-12min for a cable-actuated version. Now, multiply that times 20,000 MTB builds and you have million(s) of dollars of wages to workers saved. Also, they can make frames cheaper and lighter (dropping things like tube-in-tube, cable ports molded in frames, etc.) *they keep MSRP of frame the same which increases per frame margin (profit).
UBM is likely the same. This will allow frame manufacturers to make frames say $25 cheaper. Now multiply that times 40,000 MTB frames and that's a quick $1 million savings a year. AND the brake posts will be better aligned, and changing rotor sizes will be easier (and faster during OEM builds, as well as they won't need to waste time with washers/longer bolts, etc.).
People think too much from the end consumer or OEM. SRAM is wisely playing to the OEMs with a lot of these moves. AND it also greatly benefits the customer in the long run. UDH is awesome; it's solved the RD hanger problem. AND it allows for direct mount which is a far superior system in terms of robustness and shifting precision.
It's almost like SRAM is in the business of making money and not to only please us!?! 😄
Pretty sure it is. Looks like the belt pokes just above the seatstay as it wraps the pulley too. Very nice.
I didn't get very good feedback on the other site when I voiced my belief we'll see more gearboxes showing up (because I bought one and inspired everyone, of course) haha.
Pretty stoked on seeing some new development in bikes other than a new color and saying that getting rid of a derailleur hanger is a revolution
The Atherton does look to have a high belt line which is interesting. Could be a normal idler bike or 1 belt and 1 chain. I would think that a small belt would be super inefficient, dunno I've not felt the belts they use.
i thought so too at first. then i did Enhance.gif, and it would appear it is configured with some sort of tensioner pulley that directs the...
i thought so too at first. then i did Enhance.gif, and it would appear it is configured with some sort of tensioner pulley that directs the belt upwards towards the main pivot region before back to the rear hub.
You're right. Didn't see it on my mobile screen. Now I also see the chainring looking very belty.
The Atherton does look to have a high belt line which is interesting. Could be a normal idler bike or 1 belt and 1 chain. I...
The Atherton does look to have a high belt line which is interesting. Could be a normal idler bike or 1 belt and 1 chain. I would think that a small belt would be super inefficient, dunno I've not felt the belts they use.
Don't they claim belts are more efficient under load? Interestingly on my G3 it feels like the force to bend it around all the cogs and pulleys is noticeable, but when I increase belt tension to recommendation for MTB, it seems to spin much easier.
2 belts would technically have the same number of bends if there's no additional tension pulley, so the energy loss should be similar. I think it's much easier to design with a single belt and a tension pulley though..maybe just because I'm used to looking at it too much!
The Atherton does look to have a high belt line which is interesting. Could be a normal idler bike or 1 belt and 1 chain. I...
The Atherton does look to have a high belt line which is interesting. Could be a normal idler bike or 1 belt and 1 chain. I would think that a small belt would be super inefficient, dunno I've not felt the belts they use.
Don't they claim belts are more efficient under load? Interestingly on my G3 it feels like the force to bend it around all the cogs and...
Don't they claim belts are more efficient under load? Interestingly on my G3 it feels like the force to bend it around all the cogs and pulleys is noticeable, but when I increase belt tension to recommendation for MTB, it seems to spin much easier.
2 belts would technically have the same number of bends if there's no additional tension pulley, so the energy loss should be similar. I think it's much easier to design with a single belt and a tension pulley though..maybe just because I'm used to looking at it too much!
Possibly naive question; how hard is it to adapt an existing frame design to accommodate a gearbox? Are there other considerations besides creating space and mounting points for it (which requires changing tube lengths etc.)?
Maybe some but not all. I was PM at Canfield Bikes when UDH was announced and that detail was not started. I suspected there was more to the story than selling $15 retail derailleur hangers.
For sure. I was told by "someone" "somewhere" (deliberately vague) they were privy to upcoming Sram product information back in spring 2021 without spilling any specific beans. Considering Transmission launched in 2023, it must have been Transmission at the time. This was for the purposes of complete bike builds.
What I want to know, amongst this discussion of a UBH, is who the hell is managing to strip their brake mount threads?
Good lord. You pull that off, you probably shouldn’t use a stove or knife, either.
Any talk about better alignment using a UBM is kinda silly. You have concentricity, parallel between axle and the outward mount hole, surface flatness between the mount and frame, in addition to the existing flatness and parallel of a traditional post mount. All in, it seems like more dimensional control is needed rather than less. This from the co that used concave/convex washers to fit between their caliper feet and frame/adapter mounts claiming 'irregular surfaces' at the mount faces while no other co had such issues (at least none that couldn't be remedied by facing the mount as you should a B
and I am calling boooogus. Definitely a trojan horse for something they have up their sleeve. Now, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out with the co's that have already been using a similar design prior to the '21 filing date. Due to prior art/design, this shouldn't have been granted and highlights how screwed/overwhelmed the US Patent Office is. If they decide to litigate against those co's I hope they get the soc media/forum beatdown Knolly did when they went after Intense over the offset seat tube design.
Love Ohlin's "if ain't broke don't fix it" approach to their forks. That TTX18 cartridge is so good I am glad they didn't change it. No marketing non-sense like MOAR shimz etc. I hope they stay this way and soon enough all my forks will be from them.
New Salsa Spearfish coming soon:
https://bikeinsights.com/bikes/5b8578e248f3a30004789742-salsa-cycles-sp…
atherton gearbox?
The requirements for the hole to mount the UBM to are about the same as the requirements for a dropout in general. Then you need a post to act as a torque brace. That's it.
Facing post mounts is a damn PITA as it requires VERY special tools as opposed to BB/HT reaming/facing. The complexity for a frame designer is, for better or for worse, lower with a (properly executed) UBM.
I mean, I've cross-threaded a brake mount post on a bike made of swiss cheese before. Wasn't my proudest moment holding a wrench, and it just required a retap.
I also saw someone who came in with the bolts sheared into their brake post mount after a "particularly odd" crash.
I'm just saying, the more parts are replaceable the better.
Looping back to the conversation about USD forks given the team rumours announced today. With Reece Wilson’s AOD racing on the Manitou Dorado (supposedly running an Oleo strut shock??), and IFR on the EXT Vaia, and a new model from an named big brand, USD forks are definitely going to be making waves in 2025. At this rate, Honda definitely needs to resurrect the RN01.
I loved this little detail on the DHR.
The frame was so nicely executed, still my fav DW-Link packaging.
That's honestly my favorite solution wherever applicable.
I'm not convinced post mount is a problem that needs addressing - it's been a while since I've seen an issue with one of those. One customer "stripped it", but they had a very short bolt so only stripped the first 3mm of the thread, which was easily worked around with a proper sized bolt. Turner's solution would be awesome though.
Back to rumors - I can't really make out the driveline on the Atherton. I know they've had the video walking around with a pinion, but it's not very clear to me here?
This looks very much chainless to me?
Something everyone has to realize about UBM and UDH is that SRAM is in the business of selling OEM to massive bike companies. Anything SRAM can do to make the process faster and cheaper/better for the OEMs is seen as a win. In the case of Transmission/wireless drivetrains, that is a WIN for OEMs. Say they can shave -5-10 minutes a bike not having to deal with cables, setting stops, tension, etc. They can install a Transmission drivetrain in <5mins, vs. say 10-12min for a cable-actuated version. Now, multiply that times 20,000 MTB builds and you have million(s) of dollars of wages to workers saved. Also, they can make frames cheaper and lighter (dropping things like tube-in-tube, cable ports molded in frames, etc.) *they keep MSRP of frame the same which increases per frame margin (profit).
UBM is likely the same. This will allow frame manufacturers to make frames say $25 cheaper. Now multiply that times 40,000 MTB frames and that's a quick $1 million savings a year. AND the brake posts will be better aligned, and changing rotor sizes will be easier (and faster during OEM builds, as well as they won't need to waste time with washers/longer bolts, etc.).
People think too much from the end consumer or OEM. SRAM is wisely playing to the OEMs with a lot of these moves. AND it also greatly benefits the customer in the long run. UDH is awesome; it's solved the RD hanger problem. AND it allows for direct mount which is a far superior system in terms of robustness and shifting precision.
i thought so too at first. then i did Enhance.gif, and it would appear it is configured with some sort of tensioner pulley that directs the belt upwards towards the main pivot region before back to the rear hub.
Those mis-matched gold-ish colors are something. They go nicely with a bluetooth speaker blaring club music in the forest.
Is that a belt?
It's almost like SRAM is in the business of making money and not to only please us!?! 😄
Any one noticed how the rear shock is mounted on that Atherton bike? the reservoir is now mounted more sideways.
Didn't Dave Weagle post that he had more dual chain bikes (ala Pivot Phoenix) coming up this year?
What if the Atherton bike is a belt driven gearbox bike with the same suspension as the Pivot Phoenix, But instead of 2 chains, it uses 2 belts?
Pretty sure it is. Looks like the belt pokes just above the seatstay as it wraps the pulley too. Very nice.
I didn't get very good feedback on the other site when I voiced my belief we'll see more gearboxes showing up (because I bought one and inspired everyone, of course) haha.
Pretty stoked on seeing some new development in bikes other than a new color and saying that getting rid of a derailleur hanger is a revolution
The Atherton does look to have a high belt line which is interesting. Could be a normal idler bike or 1 belt and 1 chain. I would think that a small belt would be super inefficient, dunno I've not felt the belts they use.
Didn’t see it in this thread, new Brose Motor with 95Nm.
https://www.bike-magazin.de/komponenten/e-bike-motoren/brose-drive-3-pe…
new Levo probably incoming given timing of PB interview + new brose motor announcement
You're right. Didn't see it on my mobile screen.
Now I also see the chainring looking very belty.
Pivot location is gonna be interesting!
Don't they claim belts are more efficient under load? Interestingly on my G3 it feels like the force to bend it around all the cogs and pulleys is noticeable, but when I increase belt tension to recommendation for MTB, it seems to spin much easier.
2 belts would technically have the same number of bends if there's no additional tension pulley, so the energy loss should be similar. I think it's much easier to design with a single belt and a tension pulley though..maybe just because I'm used to looking at it too much!
Possibly naive question; how hard is it to adapt an existing frame design to accommodate a gearbox? Are there other considerations besides creating space and mounting points for it (which requires changing tube lengths etc.)?
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation