Just a potential Million Dollar Idea that I'd like to throw out there. (MDI = I have an idea, you make it work, you make the...
Just a potential Million Dollar Idea that I'd like to throw out there. (MDI = I have an idea, you make it work, you make the millions and then IFF you're a good person, you come back later and throw some cash in my face in thanks. Let's make the world a better place!)
There's a lot of talk out there over frame designs that favor either coil springs or air springs due to their leverage ratios. This shock choice conundrum stems from the fact that the poor little shock alone is responsible for stopping the travel at bottom out.
What if the frame itself was responsible for limiting the travel Before all that pressure was slammed into the shock? One could work adjustable bottom out bumpers into the frame itself. Kind of like Santa Cruz and Intense bikes have those little rubber top out bumpers on their VPP suspensions, just at the other end of travel. With an air can, the bumper could just be tuned to accept the harsh bottom out only, relying on the ramp up of the air spring for the progression curve and preventing the harsh hit inside of the damper.. With coil shocks, both the placement and durometer of the bumper could be adjusted to provide a nice soft, or firm landing?
By the way "IFF" is a term in the language of logic that means "If and only if." So sorry Brad H. this offer does not apply to you. Feel free to run with it Hank, or anyone else worthy!
Are you just referring to a bottom out bumper? Motorcycle shocks all have these and they are mediocre solutions at best. The extreme high spring force creates kickback after the initial slam. Similar to why the ramp in air shocks is bad. Hydraulic bottom out is much better. There are multiple solutions used currently. Fox, and a couple others, have employed internal hydraulic bottom out, as in their Podium motocross shock. In the off-road truck world, you can get separate hydraulic bottom out dampers. King Shocks and others have them. As well as their multiple bypass shocks.
The internal hydraulic bottoming is a great option, just harder to package. MX-Tech has such a feature for forks called the huck valve.
The difference between the air and coil shocks isn’t the leverage ratios, they are generally the same, it is the spring ramp. There’s some cool tech available now to help alleviate the bad ramp of air shocks, to create a more coil-like feel/performance. Then bottom out can just be done through adjustable hydraulics or the most common way; progressive linkage ratios. There’s no issue with highly progressive linkage ratios at the end, the hydraulics can handle it and is the best method for controlling it. I would not be too keen to have 2 frame member slamming into each other to take that force, and in a way that doesn’t provide control.
Here's an update to my invention featured back in 2014:
In January, patent no. 10,167,055 was issued for VECTr - Variably Expanding Chain Transmission
Here's a...
Here's an update to my invention featured back in 2014:
In January, patent no. 10,167,055 was issued for VECTr - Variably Expanding Chain Transmission
It's great that you are trying something different, I applaud the engineering. But you did it, you made the noisiest drivetrain. Most companies are trying to eliminate noise and you went the other way. Also, I watched both videos and haven't seen where you backpedal in succession. Is there an effect that occurs that when you do so? Chain drop?
It's great that you are trying something different, I applaud the engineering. But you did it, you made the noisiest drivetrain. Most companies are trying to...
It's great that you are trying something different, I applaud the engineering. But you did it, you made the noisiest drivetrain. Most companies are trying to eliminate noise and you went the other way. Also, I watched both videos and haven't seen where you backpedal in succession. Is there an effect that occurs that when you do so? Chain drop?
Have you heard about the polygon effect? It's the reason Sram went for a 42-10 cassette with XX1 instead of the prototype 36-9. What you ave here is a 5 tooth sprocket in effect.
Have you heard about the polygon effect? It's the reason Sram went for a 42-10 cassette with XX1 instead of the prototype 36-9. What you ave...
Have you heard about the polygon effect? It's the reason Sram went for a 42-10 cassette with XX1 instead of the prototype 36-9. What you ave here is a 5 tooth sprocket in effect.
I have not heard of the polygon effect. I take it that it is a bad thing. Why is it bad?
Interesting. This affects all chain drives, apparently, but the effect would become more pronounced in VECTr at higher settings (than in a continuous chainrings) as the space between gear segments increases, bur then for only for a fraction of each crank rotation. Lower settings (35t/30t) it seems virtually the same as continuous chainrings. I suppose it will come down to what a rider can feel, and what he/she will tolerate against whatever advantages VECTr offers in the way of constant chain line, greater number of gear settings, changing gears under load, no chain drop, aerodynamics (?), et al. It is often supposed that VECTr will feel "lumpy," but I have not really been able to feel this to any noticeable degree, but I may not be the most sensitive of riders. As with most things, one will have to judge based on one's experience in riding it.
Honestly i see no chance of MTB going away from a single, solid chainring in the front. Dual and triple chainrings were polished by the big guys and still went the way of the dodo. This simply looks complicated and like something that would clog up with mud on a MTB. Plus the polygon effect of course. And what is the weight like?
You have to bring significant benefits in one area to be able to live with disadvantages in multiple other areas. Chain retention, simplicity, space for frame designers, stability of components (a given chainring size, important for suspension development), robustness, only one shifter, etc., are the reasons 1x drivetrains have taken off as much as they have. Because they are simple and the work. And they work good enough, for example compared to gearboxes.
If i described a very similar transmission in rough (two opposing pyramids) that i thought up literally a week ago and posted it to a Slovenian forum, is that grounds to dispute (and prevent the filing of) of a patent? I once heard that having the idea by someone else in the public domain gives you grounds to prevent the successful filing.
If i described a very similar transmission in rough (two opposing pyramids) that i thought up literally a week ago and posted it to a Slovenian...
If i described a very similar transmission in rough (two opposing pyramids) that i thought up literally a week ago and posted it to a Slovenian forum, is that grounds to dispute (and prevent the filing of) of a patent? I once heard that having the idea by someone else in the public domain gives you grounds to prevent the successful filing.
The 'ketna' thing is 'the chain'. Surprisingly well translated!
With regards to the US patent office:
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: The USPTO used to have a "first to invent" policy where if you could prove you had the idea first, you could challenge the filing. A few years ago the USPTO went to a "first to file" policy, so whoever files the idea first they own it. Besides they filed in 2017 anyways.
More weird and wonderful solutions to problems that no longer exist? Who knows why they've been working on this, but that probably goes for a bunch of inventions over the course of history, so we'll just content ourselves with noting that SRAM has filed a patent for what looks like a very complex, self-contained shifting front chainring:
With SRAM releasing the 52 tooth cog if you were not already wondering how far it will go you should be now. As the range of 1x's have increased so has the jumps from one cog to another as well as a number of other issues. Will we get to the point we just run a gear on the outside edge of the rim? I see the return of 2x systems. I believe it has been attempted in the past where the front/chain ring shifting is automatic. I could see SRAM with there AXS system having a single controller controlling both F&R Der.. Think of it this way: The rider controls the gear ratio the front and rear shift is controlled by the programming to provide the gear selected by shifting both the front and rear derailleurs. You may need to go old school and research half steps. Think of the differential in ratio provided by the chain rings being half of what the shift from one cog to the next cog on one chain ring.
More weird and wonderful solutions to problems that no longer exist? Who knows why they've been working on this, but that probably goes for a bunch...
More weird and wonderful solutions to problems that no longer exist? Who knows why they've been working on this, but that probably goes for a bunch of inventions over the course of history, so we'll just content ourselves with noting that SRAM has filed a patent for what looks like a very complex, self-contained shifting front chainring:
Since we see so much come full circle, they're just waiting for people to reinvent the front derailleur and pull this out as the new 28.99 mm front shifting standard.
With SRAM releasing the 52 tooth cog if you were not already wondering how far it will go you should be now. As the range of...
With SRAM releasing the 52 tooth cog if you were not already wondering how far it will go you should be now. As the range of 1x's have increased so has the jumps from one cog to another as well as a number of other issues. Will we get to the point we just run a gear on the outside edge of the rim? I see the return of 2x systems. I believe it has been attempted in the past where the front/chain ring shifting is automatic. I could see SRAM with there AXS system having a single controller controlling both F&R Der.. Think of it this way: The rider controls the gear ratio the front and rear shift is controlled by the programming to provide the gear selected by shifting both the front and rear derailleurs. You may need to go old school and research half steps. Think of the differential in ratio provided by the chain rings being half of what the shift from one cog to the next cog on one chain ring.
I'm one of the first to say how stupid the 52T cassette, in current form, is. I've said it on Pinkbike and I've said it here, in the tech rumours thread. And like I said, I hate that they just did +2 on the last cog to effectively +1 Shimano and called it a day. To me that's kindergarten engineering/marketing, done just and only to be one better than your competition and hardly providing any benefit to the end user (except for the ~4 % lighter lightest gear). And you introduce a relatively bit jump between the gears. I’ve written in the tech rumours thread what I think a wider range cassette should look like (32-37-43/44-52 instead of the 32-36-42-50/52), so I’ll spare my moaning here.
Now, regarding your (quoted) post, the gist of my reply is 'nope'. With a normal 10-50 Eagle cassette or the Shimano 10-51 cassette the jumps _have_ _NOT_ increased. It's not the number of teeth between gears that matter, it's the relative number of teeth that's the key. 8 teeth between 42 and 50 looks huge compared to the 2 tooth 10-12 jump, but the change in gears is actually 19 % vs. 20 %. And gear ratios have been, for mountain bikers, basically the same since the introduction of 11-32 9spd cassettes. Yeah, we had 3 sprockets in the front at the time, but nobody was looking for intermediate gears by choosing a different front sprocket and moving half way across the cassette. When you ran out of gears on the cassette, you dropped the chain tot he small gear in the front and maybe put the chain into one heavier cog in the rear and vice-versa when you were at the small end of the cassette by changing from the middle to the big ring in the front. I did that racing XC and I sincerely hope other people did the same, covering the whole cassette in the middle ring with the small ring reserved for 3-4 big sprockets in the rear and the big ring in the front reserved for 3-4 small sprockets in the rear.
Comparing 10spd to 9spd? Add a 36T to the cassette. 11spd? Add a 42T. Eagle? Here comes the 50T. Yeah, Sram introduced a 10T small gear that used to be an 11, but otherwise both the 11 speed 10-42 cassette AND the 10-50T Eagle cassette basically add sprockets to a 9spd cassette. Change the 11T to a 10T, use the 8 12-32T sprockets off a 9spd cassette and add a 42T (and a 50T). The infamous jumps that everybody moans about (you're far from the first one)? Going to 36, 42 and 50 T sprockets gives you gear jumps of between 15 and 20 %. More or less in line with the rest of the cassette. If you want I have graphs on this topic
It can be argued that smaller jumps do make sense, but for general public more range is more useful. That’s why the 10-45T 12spd XTR cassette is called a Rhythm cassette and is aimed primarily at (XC) racers.
Regarding your half steps, i suppose you mean that by shifting the front to achieve the half step between two rear sprockets? Sorry, but I have zero intention of lugging around 2 sprockets and derailleur just to have a 10 or 20 % difference in tooth count between them (a 30 and a 34 for example). And for what, to go back to the same 10-50T cassette (to still get the range, as half steps do nothing for the complete range), but with only 6 or 7 gears? I much prefer the current way. Or do you think it would be done the old way with a tighter cassette and a big difference in the front? That’s even worse. Let me explain.
With a small difference in the front and a 7spd cassette, to achieve all the ratios, you do 6 shifts in the rear and 13 shifts in the front (6+7), as going from the highest to the lowest gear would be: front only (to a smaller ring), both (front back to big, rear to a bigger sprocket), front, both, front, both, front, both, front, both, front, both, front. You're doing a whole lot of shifting on the front, where the chain is taught (improving the front derailleur doesn’t have any influence on this factor – the taught chain is the reason for the many issues that occurred with the front derailleur, like slow and bad shifts, broken chains, etc.) and much less shifting on a more functioning derailleur in the rear, where the chain is essentially slack.
Going back to the old ways with a big step in the front and a tight cassette (like how roadies have it now) and mapping out all the fine steps in gears? You're throwing around the chain in the rear across 3, 4 or even 5 sprockets for a single shift. Every damn time, just to catch the ideal cadence for each gear shift.
Admittedly it's now been 5 years since I last used a front derailleur 'in anger', but I remember that they shifted slowly, no power could be applied to them during the shift and that problems were plentiful. Rear only shifting made it a lot easier to understand shifting for users with the whole experience being better (I'll cover other advantages soon). Sure, you mentioned AXS, it can easily be done with it (hell, Shimano did it with their Di2 XTR, shifting both front and rear with a single shifter). Not to the extent you've imagined (or the way I imagine you imagined given your description), but still. But consider the issues with front shifting and then consider those in combination with the issue of not having any feel (like with a cable actuated derailleur), just a button to press. And that people generally don't know how to shift, even good riders often have or had problems using the correct front-to-rear pairs of gears not to wreak havoc on the drivetrain, etc.
The main benefits of not having a front derailleur? Less weight (let’s ignore the elephant in the room of huge cassettes though), less cables and levers on the bar, better chain retention both through tooth shape and chainguides, easier frame design with more space around a now tightly packed area (we didn’t have 29ers and wide tyres when 3x and 2x systems were still popular), more stable front sprocket sizing for antisquat modelling, better rear derailleurs (P-shaped cages and horizontal movement of the parallelogram, since it doesn't need to follow the cassette shape, the P-shaped cage does this - this is not possible with two front chainrings) where all the vertical shocks have a much lower influence on the derailleur, etc. High pivot bikes are also much much harder to implement with 2+ front rings.
The way I see it, shifting anywhere but on the rear axle, for mountain bikes, will only happen if said shifting will be enclosed into a case (yup, a gearbox). But with the state of current 12spd I hardly see gearboxes taking a hold and for sure don't see more than one front ring making a comeback. Even more, I wouldn't be surprised if road bikes also went 1x in the non-competitive models due to ease of use (racers do indeed need or want the smaller jumps in the rear and they often ride 11-28 cassettes with two rings in the front to still get the range). Gravel bikes have already started that movement.
Hammerschmidt 2.0? always looked interesting just felt it was too heavy. Anyone still running one of those? with a 34t up front and 10x50 in the rear thats all the gearing I'll ever need.
Hammerschmidt 2.0? always looked interesting just felt it was too heavy. Anyone still running one of those? with a 34t up front and 10x50 in the...
Hammerschmidt 2.0? always looked interesting just felt it was too heavy. Anyone still running one of those? with a 34t up front and 10x50 in the rear thats all the gearing I'll ever need.
Remember my invention in 2016? A 550 Gramm 2 gear chain ring at the fron that shifted under full load...? http://www.vyro.com/
I had absolutely no chance against the 1-by-trend. Just stopped selling it last year. Still some hundreds on stock.
I just remembered the Suntour/Braun electric shifting system of the late 80's, where a quarter of the chainring was moving. I could be wrong on the exact name, but that was the principle. Will look it up, but now it's time to ride!
I just remembered the Suntour/Braun electric shifting system of the late 80's, where a quarter of the chainring was moving. I could be wrong on the...
I just remembered the Suntour/Braun electric shifting system of the late 80's, where a quarter of the chainring was moving. I could be wrong on the exact name, but that was the principle. Will look it up, but now it's time to ride!
Mx
Yes Suntour/ Browning "the Beast" but it was indeed pretty different. Closer to that what what SRAM just patented but not the same either. It were the chain rings themselves which had one sector swiveling out ro catch teh chain from another. I was pretty smart but too early. No bluetooth and good batteries at these times (1986).
The internal hydraulic bottoming is a great option, just harder to package. MX-Tech has such a feature for forks called the huck valve.
The difference between the air and coil shocks isn’t the leverage ratios, they are generally the same, it is the spring ramp. There’s some cool tech available now to help alleviate the bad ramp of air shocks, to create a more coil-like feel/performance. Then bottom out can just be done through adjustable hydraulics or the most common way; progressive linkage ratios. There’s no issue with highly progressive linkage ratios at the end, the hydraulics can handle it and is the best method for controlling it. I would not be too keen to have 2 frame member slamming into each other to take that force, and in a way that doesn’t provide control.
In January, patent no. 10,167,055 was issued for VECTr - Variably Expanding Chain Transmission
Here's a video of it on a Trek bike in the lab:
https://youtu.be/9Q8RavDigzo
And here's one of it on the road:
https://youtu.be/5jBXFftKy6U
https://www.oms-antrieb.de/images/news_tn/TN17E.pdf
You have to bring significant benefits in one area to be able to live with disadvantages in multiple other areas. Chain retention, simplicity, space for frame designers, stability of components (a given chainring size, important for suspension development), robustness, only one shifter, etc., are the reasons 1x drivetrains have taken off as much as they have. Because they are simple and the work. And they work good enough, for example compared to gearboxes.
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/shimano-gearbox/
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmtb-f…
The 'ketna' thing is 'the chain'. Surprisingly well translated!
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: The USPTO used to have a "first to invent" policy where if you could prove you had the idea first, you could challenge the filing. A few years ago the USPTO went to a "first to file" policy, so whoever files the idea first they own it. Besides they filed in 2017 anyways.
Not sure on international patents.
It's posted everywhere so might as well post it here. This is the link to the Shimano 13-speed gearbox patent which was first reported on bike radar.
Read the full patent here.
Now, regarding your (quoted) post, the gist of my reply is 'nope'. With a normal 10-50 Eagle cassette or the Shimano 10-51 cassette the jumps _have_ _NOT_ increased. It's not the number of teeth between gears that matter, it's the relative number of teeth that's the key. 8 teeth between 42 and 50 looks huge compared to the 2 tooth 10-12 jump, but the change in gears is actually 19 % vs. 20 %. And gear ratios have been, for mountain bikers, basically the same since the introduction of 11-32 9spd cassettes. Yeah, we had 3 sprockets in the front at the time, but nobody was looking for intermediate gears by choosing a different front sprocket and moving half way across the cassette. When you ran out of gears on the cassette, you dropped the chain tot he small gear in the front and maybe put the chain into one heavier cog in the rear and vice-versa when you were at the small end of the cassette by changing from the middle to the big ring in the front. I did that racing XC and I sincerely hope other people did the same, covering the whole cassette in the middle ring with the small ring reserved for 3-4 big sprockets in the rear and the big ring in the front reserved for 3-4 small sprockets in the rear.
Comparing 10spd to 9spd? Add a 36T to the cassette. 11spd? Add a 42T. Eagle? Here comes the 50T. Yeah, Sram introduced a 10T small gear that used to be an 11, but otherwise both the 11 speed 10-42 cassette AND the 10-50T Eagle cassette basically add sprockets to a 9spd cassette. Change the 11T to a 10T, use the 8 12-32T sprockets off a 9spd cassette and add a 42T (and a 50T). The infamous jumps that everybody moans about (you're far from the first one)? Going to 36, 42 and 50 T sprockets gives you gear jumps of between 15 and 20 %. More or less in line with the rest of the cassette. If you want I have graphs on this topic
It can be argued that smaller jumps do make sense, but for general public more range is more useful. That’s why the 10-45T 12spd XTR cassette is called a Rhythm cassette and is aimed primarily at (XC) racers.
Regarding your half steps, i suppose you mean that by shifting the front to achieve the half step between two rear sprockets? Sorry, but I have zero intention of lugging around 2 sprockets and derailleur just to have a 10 or 20 % difference in tooth count between them (a 30 and a 34 for example). And for what, to go back to the same 10-50T cassette (to still get the range, as half steps do nothing for the complete range), but with only 6 or 7 gears? I much prefer the current way. Or do you think it would be done the old way with a tighter cassette and a big difference in the front? That’s even worse. Let me explain.
With a small difference in the front and a 7spd cassette, to achieve all the ratios, you do 6 shifts in the rear and 13 shifts in the front (6+7), as going from the highest to the lowest gear would be: front only (to a smaller ring), both (front back to big, rear to a bigger sprocket), front, both, front, both, front, both, front, both, front, both, front. You're doing a whole lot of shifting on the front, where the chain is taught (improving the front derailleur doesn’t have any influence on this factor – the taught chain is the reason for the many issues that occurred with the front derailleur, like slow and bad shifts, broken chains, etc.) and much less shifting on a more functioning derailleur in the rear, where the chain is essentially slack.
Going back to the old ways with a big step in the front and a tight cassette (like how roadies have it now) and mapping out all the fine steps in gears? You're throwing around the chain in the rear across 3, 4 or even 5 sprockets for a single shift. Every damn time, just to catch the ideal cadence for each gear shift.
Admittedly it's now been 5 years since I last used a front derailleur 'in anger', but I remember that they shifted slowly, no power could be applied to them during the shift and that problems were plentiful. Rear only shifting made it a lot easier to understand shifting for users with the whole experience being better (I'll cover other advantages soon). Sure, you mentioned AXS, it can easily be done with it (hell, Shimano did it with their Di2 XTR, shifting both front and rear with a single shifter). Not to the extent you've imagined (or the way I imagine you imagined given your description), but still. But consider the issues with front shifting and then consider those in combination with the issue of not having any feel (like with a cable actuated derailleur), just a button to press. And that people generally don't know how to shift, even good riders often have or had problems using the correct front-to-rear pairs of gears not to wreak havoc on the drivetrain, etc.
The main benefits of not having a front derailleur? Less weight (let’s ignore the elephant in the room of huge cassettes though), less cables and levers on the bar, better chain retention both through tooth shape and chainguides, easier frame design with more space around a now tightly packed area (we didn’t have 29ers and wide tyres when 3x and 2x systems were still popular), more stable front sprocket sizing for antisquat modelling, better rear derailleurs (P-shaped cages and horizontal movement of the parallelogram, since it doesn't need to follow the cassette shape, the P-shaped cage does this - this is not possible with two front chainrings) where all the vertical shocks have a much lower influence on the derailleur, etc. High pivot bikes are also much much harder to implement with 2+ front rings.
The way I see it, shifting anywhere but on the rear axle, for mountain bikes, will only happen if said shifting will be enclosed into a case (yup, a gearbox). But with the state of current 12spd I hardly see gearboxes taking a hold and for sure don't see more than one front ring making a comeback. Even more, I wouldn't be surprised if road bikes also went 1x in the non-competitive models due to ease of use (racers do indeed need or want the smaller jumps in the rear and they often ride 11-28 cassettes with two rings in the front to still get the range). Gravel bikes have already started that movement.
http://www.vyro.com/
I had absolutely no chance against the 1-by-trend. Just stopped selling it last year. Still some hundreds on stock.
Mx
Post a reply to: The Patent Thread - New and Wild Mountain Bike Inventions