The age-old derailleur versus gearbox conundrum. People often say they want gearboxes, but we rarely see them. People often say that derailleurs are junk, but when it comes to the
polling station, the masses don't appear to find fault with their derailleurs. Gearboxes are renowned as heavy and inefficient. Derailleurs save weight and spin easily, but are left hanging to receive the brunt of mother nature's forces.
Times, however, are changing. New technology and manufacturing techniques have been continuously increasing strength and reducing the weight of both systems. Surely, with the introduction of SRAM's Eagle and its whopping twelve gears, modern chain-retaining rings and quieting clutches, the derailleur (as we know it) has been developed to its limit. Though lesser-seen, the gearbox has also been around for a long time. Does it have enough room for improvement, or is it already maxed out?
Personally, I'm a big fan of the gearbox. Probably because I lack precision on the trail and I log plenty of time riding on gnarly, ungroomed, alpine terrain, which makes for plenty of potential bike-smashing moments. Many riders share my gearbox dream, but a great number, including most of my colleagues and peers, have little interest in gearboxes and are happy with their conventional derailleur systems.
Each system has its positives, and each has its compromises - topics that have fueled an ongoing debate about which transmission is ultimately the best solution for a mountain bike. To properly debate these burning issues, I asked the people at Nicolai to build two identical bikes, one with a gearbox and one with a derailleur transmission. I would then put them to task on the same terrain for both timed runs and for riding impressions. In addition, I would provide weights and technical comparisons to hopefully flesh out the best and worst of the gearbox and derailleur - and, ultimately, conclude with a clear winner.
For those of you who have yet to form an opinion, here's the general breakdown:
A Derailleur Promises:• Light weight and high efficiency
• Easily-sourced parts due to higher production volume
• Lower prices due to higher production volume
• Easy maintenance due to the external nature and cross-compatible components
A Gearbox Promises:• Protection of moving parts from the elements, debris, and strikes
• Little, or infrequent, general maintenance
• Improved
unsprung:sprung mass ratio, therefore suspension action and grip
• Increased ground clearance
The MachinesNicolai has been producing gearbox bikes, including their own G-Boxx projects, for as long as I can remember. Their latest Ion GPI bike blends a 12-speed Pinion P1.12 gearbox, a Gates Carbon belt drive, and Mojo-developed Geometron geometry. Nicolai provided me with an Ion GPI and a matching, derailleur-driven Ion16 Geometron, each with a near-identical build kit.
This isn't at all integral to the comparison aspect of this review, but I feel it needs mentioning. For those who haven't seen a Nicolai in the flesh, the handcrafted detail and finish of their aluminum chassis is superb, a bike geek's wet dream. Photos never do these bikes justice, especially in the stealth, black-anodized finish.
Both Nicolai Ions were built with Fox suspension: 36 forks and a Float X shocks with the same tunes. Hope provided cranks (derailleur-bike only), wheels and brakes. Continental provided traction, and a RockShox Reverb provided a perch. Transmissions were powered by SRAM's X01 11-speed, and Pinion's 12-speed P1.12 gearbox.
Weight and CostA few notes about the gearing: SRAM declined to provide an Eagle system for an equal test of 12 vs 12 gears, as they didn't have any in stock at the time. Since the test, Pinion has released a new 'C' version of their box which drops the claimed weight 250 grams, to 2100 grams for the unit. Pinion also offers the 18-gear, P1.18 version, for a few more dollars and an extra 350 grams.
For comparison's sake, a SRAM Eagle XX1 drivetrain, including cranks, BB, shifters, derailleur, chain and cassette weighs 1553 grams. The Pinion P1.12 gearbox alone weighs 2650 - but you'll need to add the crank arms, two belt guides, and the Gates belt and sprocket assemblies to that figure to make an accurate comparison based upon the components of each system. The difference in the overall weight of the gearbox vs the derailleur bikes is 1.78kg. One must assume that the mounting plate for the Pinion gearbox is a fraction of the sum, but if you add that figure to the Eagle drivetrain, the total weight of the Pinion transmission comes in at about 3330 grams - a bit less than double the weight of the best 12-speed derailleur system.
There is also a wide price difference between the pair: the Ion GPI with the Pinion here retails at €7400 Euros, versus the ION Geometron at €6350. That's about $7926 USD against $6804 USD at today's rate.
Gear Ranges and SpacingThe 12-speed Pinion system provides a 600% gear range with equal 17.7% steps between each gear. SRAM's 11-speed setup only provides a 420% range, with more erratic steps, ranging from 12.5% to 20%, while the 12-speed Eagle drivetrain still comes up comparatively short, at 500%, with gear steps also ranging from 20% to 12.5%.
Shifting ActionThe classic SRAM trigger shifter undercarriage is superbly ergonomic with light shifting. The two different click feelings when moving up or down gears makes it easy to remember which lever to push. It also doesn't affect your grip choice and only has one cable that needs routing, unlike the pair on the Pinion.
The Pinion's Grip Shift-style selector is more clunky. Even after spending plenty of time on the bike, and however used to it I became, I would still get confused with the similar clicks and change in the wrong direction. I didn't have any issues accidentally shifting when riding and think this would be hard to do, but I do have some experience controlling a motorbike with the throttle.
When changing down into an easier gear with the Pinion system, a slight pause or let up on the power is needed. Definitely not ideal when climbing up steep sections that require consistent power to make it to the top. The rest of the time I had no problem shifting and the rider will learn, in time, the nuances of easing the power to allow the shift to happen, it's the same as changing with a derailleur system; you can't simply change gear under full power. Over time you learn to
feel the correct pressure and allow the gears to change smoothly.
The upsides of the Pinion are that you can change gears at any time; pedaling, coasting or standing next to the bike supping espresso, showing the boys how you can switch 12 gears on the spot. This freedom can, and should be used to your advantage, preselecting gears before climbs or preparing to sprint out of corners.
The Drop TestWhat does a drop test tell us? Well, if the bike bounces, then the rear suspension hasn't absorbed the impact and energy returns upwards through the bike from the ground and lifts the bike off the floor. Both bikes had an identical shock tune, but the Pinion version has less unsprung weight, meaning the rear wheel should be able move more easily into the suspension travel and absorb the impact. It's important to note that the gearbox bike's heavier overall weight will help it stick to the ground too.
The Pinion bike offers the chance to make you feel like a boss performing this in front of your buddies, with no bounce and no noise prior to the macchiato round.
WeightThe gearbox-equipped bike weighed 1.78kg / 3.92-pounds more than its derailleur-loaded counterpart. Neither of these bikes, however, could be described as light. But, the first major argument for a gearbox equipped bike is the movement of unsprung mass to sprung mass. Unsprung mass is anything that moves below the fork stanchions and lower shock eyelet. That would be the fork sliders, wheels swingarm, linkages, brakes and cassette sprockets. Motorsport engineers will spend hours to improve this ratio by fractions of a percent. The Pinion bike's single rear sprocket and simple chain idler reduces the unsprung mass of the rear suspension.
Ground ClearanceIn a recent Pinkbike poll about derailleurs and breakage, an overwhelming majority of people said they hadn't' broken a derailleur in the last two years. In this case, I'm either an inaccurate hack on the bike, or in the workshop - or I crash too much. I have snapped two derailleur hangers in the last two months, destroyed a mech, snapped a chain, and have gears that don't quite work properly. So, ground clearance is a big deal for me, and something gearbox proponents and manufacturers also like to shout about. But, how much difference is there in reality?
At the danger end of the drivetrain, the SRAM 11-speed derailleur has just over 19cm of clearance from the ground when set in 6th gear. This decreases when speed rises and higher gears are selected. The derailleur moves down the cassette, but this also moves the derailleur away from the wheel towards oncoming trail traffic. When moving into a lower gear, the derailleur moves inwards and away from obstacles, but also extends down towards the ground. This also moves it closer to the spokes where damage can happen if something manages to push it into your rotating wheel.
The Gates carbon belt drive is a direct, single-speed system and the belt is always travelling in the same line. The rear sprocket has a massive, 29cm of clearance to the guide. Nicolai uses a standard 142mm width hub to give the correct belt-line, but the frame could be improved by using a narrower, single-speed hub, this would slim down the swingarm and perhaps, shelter the drive sprocket more effectively.
At the chainring, the derailleur bike had 27cm of clearance from the 34t chain ring to the floor. The Pinion bike comes with an integrated bash guard and chain tensioner which sat slightly higher at 27.5cm from the floor. The Pinion system also looks better for attempting Danny Macaskill style log slides.
The RideThere was a massive difference between the two bikes. Most of the riding I did was lift assisted with some pedaling up to various peaks in the Portes Du Soleil, France. In this area, I would choose the Pinion bike hands down, every ride. Yes, it's heavier, but this was only a hindrance when getting it onto lift hooks. It didn't pedal as swiftly as the derailleur bike, but on the downs, it was another–
better-–beast. The gearbox bike was so much quieter – almost silent, offered so much more grip and inspired so much more confidence when heading into gnarly sections.
I set five downhill segments and rode them each four times, 40 timed sectors in total. No pedaling, standing starts on Le Pleney. I chose simple sections, including one fire road section (Stage 5) at the end of the trails, to take away rider input as much as possible. On average, the Pinion bike was nearly three seconds quicker over a 3.5-minute track. Huge.
After riding both bikes, I would argue that in very technical, rough, and loose trails the Pinion machine would chip away at even more time, if not purely because of the extra confidence it gave to hammer through sections.
I was undecided whether this was due to the reduction of unsprung mass, the increased amount of pick up (due to two freewheels creating more slack in anti-squat) or the heavier weight of the complete bike. Heavier weight? But hey, people keep telling me a lighter bike is a faster bike? I can't find any evidence that a lighter bike is faster downhill, and something that makes me think the opposite is when I'm trying to follow a heavier rider down the hill. Try following a buddy who is 15kg's heavier than you and see who rolls the fastest.
If I lived in an area where regularly pedaling the bike to the top of the hill was needed, I think I would choose the derailleur bike. I generally don't mind grinding a heavy bike to the top of the hill, but the 17kg gearbox brute was a bore. I couldn't calculate how much, but the Pinion bike does drag more than the derailleur bike with a clean and lubed chain. The derailleur bike had more inherent anti-squat in easier gears, which made climbing easier by sitting the bike higher in the travel and pulling the bike up and over steps more easily. Technical climbing is also made more difficult on the Pinion bike; the pair of freewheels increase the engagement interval, which hampers quick, half-pedal strokes when things get trialsy.
For downhill, I am convinced the Pinion bike has a huge advantage, but for XC, it loses out. How about trail riding or enduro? That's still a big, gray zone for me and the answer depends on what this type of riding really is like for you. If you have the horsepower to get the Pinion to the top of a long, mellow road climb followed by a long descent (like we find in Europe), your trip will likely be faster and more fun-filled on the way down, providing there aren't too many techy climbs snuck into the trail. On the other hand: if your trail riding is more akin to a UK trail center, or North American trail, where the ride constantly switches between ups and downs, the derailleur bike is likely to stay ahead here.
IssuesThe gearbox dream of never breaking a derailleur? Well, the only part of either bike I managed to break during the test was the chain tensioner on the Pinion. The belt would derail if the bike was rolled backward more than a few meters (not when backpedaling) and during one attempt to re-fit it, I managed to break part the very heavily-sprung tensioner with my overly huge biceps.
The second gearbox dream of the ever-clean belt was also destroyed. Over multiple days of riding the belt drive did an excellent job of self-cleaning and never required any maintenance or even a scrub. But, on one exceptionally muddy and sticky day in Les Gets–20cm deep mud conditions–the front sprocket did clog up after it became overwhelmed with mud. The belt almost started to derail, as the packed mud lifted it away from the teeth. Some trail-side stick therapy remedied this. I figured that the accumulation may have been caused by the amount of freewheeling down the hillside, and that more time turning the pedals may have helped to clear the blockage.
Pinkbike's Take | The final question is: Which one would I choose? That is a tough one, but I would go with the Pinion bike for Alpine-based and uplift-assist riding, the 155mm travel Pinion bike is a killer, and a downhill version would surely be a winner. If I was back in the UK, pedaling more and lapping trail centers and local woods, I would take the derailleur bike, but then there's the mud, grit, cleaning and tuning to contend with... - Paul Aston |
Visit the feature gallery for additional high resolution images
Sure it's designed for ebikes (shudder), but it's got an 11-48 range over and 8 speed cassette!
Now if they could make it a touch lighter... I think we'd be getting somewhere.
Not a gearbox, but looks nice.
Not a fan of belt as it's not needed, chains on gearbox bikes last several times longer than a bike with mech anyway. However your points are not really relevant as a motorbike and or car have way different loads etc. Belts aren't needed, but they would work okay. Not sure why the Germans keep pushing them though.
Furthermore, the gearbox is a big opportunity for downhill to wrest its title back from enduro as the F1 of mountain bikes. Shifting under power won't be as much of a problem, and neither will weight; the improvements in ground clearance and suspension performance will be most beneficial in DH. So it's natural to expect that gearbox downhill bikes will herald their widespread adoption... except that downhill bikes are one of the lowest-selling mountain bike segments; any R&D costs a manufacturer invests in developing a gearbox downhill bike will be much more difficult to recoup than if they were invested in an enduro or trail bike (hence the Taniwha). So as far as the financial incentive to improve the technology, gearboxes are fighting a fundamentally pitched battle. That's probably why it's taking so long. If everyone rode downhill, I imagine we would have started seeing gearbox DH bikes from midsize manufacturers two or three years ago.
This comment kind of ruined it for me... "I can't find any evidence that a lighter bike is faster downhill, and something that makes me think the opposite is when I'm trying to follow a heavier rider down the hill. Try following a buddy who is 15kg's heavier than you and see who rolls the fastest." So you are saying that a heavier guy is always faster?? Try telling that to Troy Brosnan - the "little guy" seems to do pretty well against guys that are much heavier than him
Sponsorships aren't that big of a barrier anymore, as the world cup champs team and Specialized Gravity aren't sponsored by a drivetrain company and have to purchase them retail.
If Pinion came out with a 6 or 7 speed drivetrain, with less than 300% spread (no overdrive gears) it would weigh maybe a 1/3 of even the new light 12 speed gearbox, could be even smaller, and would be a great potential application for DH, especially if mated to Di2
The weight comment is a little off though, but at the end of the day Paul's just saying that if you're 90% focused on the downs, then don't stress the weight, this thing rips. DH bikes have dropped from 40 lbs 10 years ago to 33 lbs today. Ask anyone if they feel better on a lighter or heavier bike given the choice.
However, the comment on weight is a poor one. Most riders I know do prefer the lighter bikes as its easier to move the bike to hit their spots on the track or get to spots that were more challenging with a heavier bike. There is a reason racers have moved to lighter bikes - they're faster. Of course, there is a limit here for where going too light my be hurtful, but I don't think racers want to be in the 40+ pound range anymore.
It's lighter then current setups in this test by quite a bit.
Agreed, the force of gravity imparts the same acceleration on any object of mass. When gravity converts that higher potential energy into KINETIC energy, that is when mass becomes relevant. When you start smashing through rocks and roots and even air (unless you ride on the moon), the velocity of the object with greater mass will be less affected.
a. the love child of Albert Einstein
b. stoned
c. a physicist or mathematician
Do you ride -
a. a mtn bike
b. a nuclear powered laser pulse induced e-bike
c. a granny bike with a basket
Is your fastest recorded speed -
a. 44 kmph
b. the speed of light
c. the speedo melted due to the electro-magnetic radiation
is your full-face made of -
a. carbon
b. plastic
c. lead
Have you actually ridden on the moon?
Also would allow 1970's space helmets to be legit again. Which in turn would allow you to wear cycling specific visor glasses without looking like a tw@t.
Maybe a similar test needs to happen for a trail bike. If anyone is willing to give me £15k + expenses I am more than happy to put my engineering degree to good use.
seriously? 15.5kg ouch and extra drag
air or coil shocks?
If everyone rode DH there would be too many awesome people for the general population to handle! :-P
www.pinkbike.com/photo/13049543
are you -
a. not to my knowledge
b. I wish
c. not exactly, mechanical engineer
Do you ride -
a. a mtn bike? YES
Is your fastest recorded speed -
relative to what?
is your full-face made of -
d. flesh, bone, cartilage
The heavier rider will likely have more surface area, increasing air resistance, and more friction with the ground, and is therefore slower, all else being equal.
The point the author is making is that heavier riders also can "plow" through the rough stuff, since dirt is malleable. I don't know if I agree with this point; I myself was faster 4 years ago when I was lighter, despite having an older, slower bike.
All else being equal is an important statement. Gravity does not help heavier bikes/riders more than lighter bikes/riders, period. Heavier things falling faster is a very common misconception though.
Mmmmkay, you might be right in a straight line, but downhillers DON'T RIDE IN A STRAIGHT LINE. A heavier object that has to change direction or go up and over something TAKES MORE ENERGY.
Is that why all of those pro-DH riders are big fatties? Hmm, wait........
DHers don't plow through obstacles like a bowling ball though pins...They have to go up and over or around. A lighter rider has the advantage in 100% of the direction changes.
Having been on a box since last August, I would never want a derailluer again. Chain security, shifting abilities, maintenance, etc. life is just better with a gearbox. I guess unless you are a weight weenie.
C'mon man... a bowling ball is obviously going to have more rotational inertia than a much smaller and less massive object. Only the wheels on a bike have rotational inertia, and it will be essentially the same for all bikes. In a purely straight line, the more massive object will carry more speed, though it will take more pedaling force to get up to speed. We already established that if gravity was the only force acceleration would be equal. However, DH tracks are decidedly NOT straight. So try this, roll a bowling ball and a marble down a hill. Not try to get them to turn, which goes around corners and returns to speed faster?
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" - Stephen Hawking
"Better be ignorant of a matter than half know it." Publilius Syrus
With that level of insight, there is no way Publilius Syrus was a downhiller !!
Cool man. I guess you have proven the whole bike industry wrong then. You should let them know they can stop trying to make bikes lighter.
It is cool that derailleurs and gearboxes are both getting better and people are having more options to vote with their wallets, we will see how the whole thing goes.
My next bike will have derailleurs but who knows about the bike after that?
Unsprung vs sprung weight in particular. With a 1x dérailleur setup, the gears and shifting mechanism are all at the rear and the suspension has that much more mass to handle swinging up and down.
The Gearbox OTOH is placed in the middle and doesn't suffer those drawbacks. That's one of the reasons it's a superior setup for DH and I'll argue Enduro as well.
Lycra-Lads should stick with a dérailleur.
You wouldn't put the wide range cassette or the wide range gearbox on a DH bike so a lot of what is said about both systems doesn't really apply to DH specific rigs. Particularly when it comes to the increased ground clearance and the weight differences.
You're right! A wide range kit makes no sense for a DH bike, but it does for an Enduro rig.
And at this point some are going to argue that the additional weight and drag are too much to justify, but that's more personal at this point. Some Enduro riders carry the difference in weight between a gearbox and der setup in their backpacks! Tracey Mosely in her last year of full time racing was spanking everyone with what appeared to be an expedition pack on her back.
But you would still put on a wide range on your DH bike if there is not a narrow range available, simply because the increase in suspension performance greatly out weights that of a der.
@DARKSTAR63:
I think "Hides" is the wrong word. "Doesn't bother" is probably more fitting.
Everyone knows the additional weight is there so what is there to talk about really. The drawbacks are a known quantity to everyone so not stating it isn't such a loss. We all know it!
OTOH, there are more than a few that will argue that the weight penalty may be justified if the better suspension action results in better climbing over "TECHNICAL" terrain. And we are mountain bikers right? Aren't roots and rocks part of our experience?
On the weight difference, MBR (who did a report on these two bikes nearly a year ago!) states that the gearbox setup weights 2.7 kilos by itself. That's just shy of 6 lbs! That is a bit!
OTOH, if you carry a 2.5 litre hydration pack (with water in it!), a tube or two, a small pump, some snacks for energy, and a multi-tool, you're already over that 2.7 kilos!
The simple truth here is that if a 40% reduction(!!!!!) in unsprung mass at the rear (based on the MBR review) is less important than an increase in 6lbs, you're an XC rider!
www.mbr.co.uk/reviews/full-suspension-bikes/is-the-nicolai-ion-gpi-the-most-radical-mountain-bike-ever-created-video
I'll back up from "you're an XC rider" and instead say that one is XC focused.
Most aren't going to carry that much while riding DH, if anything. we can remove that right there.
The real battle fronts for acceptance here are XC and Enduro. Efficiency is paramount in cross country.
Enduro OTOH is a blending between DH and XC so no single Enduro bike is going to be as good as a dedicated XC or DH rig right? So you're after the best possible compromise.
When you consider that you are timed on the trip down, that logically would skew the balance a little towards the DH side of the blend no?
Anyway, I'll agree that the bike isn't for everyone! If you don't have the mindset to deal with a bike that's going to feel sluggish while going slow (due to it's length and plushness more than it's weight), stay away from it. The Tanniwha is likely to be more lively and feel more familiar by virtue of not having a twist grip. :-)
And awesome bike BTW!
Also, gearboxes def need to nix the grip shift. I rock a scooter and the throttle is sooo annoying. The industry SHIFTED from grip shifts for a reason.
I wouldn't have gone back to traditional pods but my shifter died and sram doesn't seem to make 1x10 ones and I'm not paying 300$ for a 2x10 combo. I just took the old x9 pod I had lying around since I don't use a flat bar anymore but I miss it all the time.
It's not the first time I see an article about Pinion, with a bike tha has two freewheel. I don't know if the gearbox actually need the hub's freewheel, or if they put a standard hub instead of a fixie one.
I think the metal/glass is about 10% of the weight of steel and much much stronger.
300g sounds a lot more healthy, and not having a beer keg strapped to your bb has to be a better look.
How would a belt/chain make a difference there?
Too funny! LOL!
Not to mention this is a drivetrain review, and it just so happens you need a drivetrain to go UP hills, you don't necessarily need a drivetrain to go down.
Therefore, going uphill is a major component of this bike and this review.
It's an enduro bike, which means slow up the hills, quick down (at least if current endurbo marketing jargon is to be believed). Had it been a helius, or another trail bike, yea sure, it would highlight those flaws more. but a bike intended for sales to a gravity oriented market (freeride, enduro, big mountain riding, etc) should put climbing on the back burner, for somewhat of a 70/30 importance. Of course, if your riding is more steep climbs to get to the bottom, then yea, it wouldn't be ideal, but then neither would any 160mm bike compared to a trail or xc bike. FWIW I was the Canadian importer for this company in the mid 2000s, so I'm familiar with what the Ion line is intended for. They have their helius bikes for more all around trail riding.
i ride an 07 sx trail up and down hills. believe me, if i had the cash to drop on some carbon goodies to drop some weight, i would (actually i would just get a new gen enduro bike which is good at both going up and down and it wouldnt have a gearbox)
like really, just get a dh bike and pedal it up hills, at least youll be able to go faster coming back down.
Very odd reply. But to be expected from someone who didn't understand the post he was replying to.
I prefer my bike.
Not the most progressive out there, but definitely has some progression. I also got the X2 on mine, but am still waiting for it to arrive.
That isn't even accounting for power loss due to chain stretch.
Compare the amount of bounce in the back wheel between the derailleur bike and the gearbox bike; you'll see that the gearbox bike bounces much less. If you look closely, you can also see that the gearbox bike's rear suspension is compressing more - this is the real point. This is because the gearbox bike's frame weighs more than the derailleur bike's frame, thanks to the extra weight of the gearbox. The extra weight is activating the suspension, meaning that the energy of the drop is being absorbed by the shock's damping circuit, rather than being stored in the tire and then returned as bounce. Basically, the idea is that the extra weight keeps the wheel stuck to the ground by requiring the rear suspension to be more active. This is the idea of sprung versus unsprung mass: for a given total system weight (i.e., bike plus rider) the more weight is "above" the suspension, the better the suspension will work. In practical terms, this means getting weight off the wheels and onto the frame or rider, since the wheels are "below" the suspension. So getting weight off the rear wheel and onto the frame (by losing the cassette and adding the gearbox) improves the ratio of sprung mass to unsprung mass, and makes the suspension work better. This is what you see in the video.
Incidentally, this is the same reason the article mentions the difficulty of keeping up with heavy riders over rough ground: a heavier rider also results in a better sprung mass ratio. This is also the reason why the gearbox makes much less of a difference in real life than it does in the video. In real life, you have to include the weight of the rider, as well as the bike. Without the rider, losing the cassette and adding the gearbox probably changes the the sprung:unsprung mass ratio from about two kilos for the rear wheel and one kilo for the frame, to about one kilo for the rear wheel and about three kilos for the frame. Going from 2:1 kg to 1:3 kg is a 600% percent difference - which is why you can actually see the difference in the video. But if you add the weight of the rider (~90kg), that becomes a change from 2:91 to 1:93, which is only a 1.1% difference. A 1.1% improvement is certainly enough for a good rider to feel, and almost exactly matches the 1.6% average time improvement that Paul reported in the article.
Of course, if you wanted the same benefits, you could just bolt some lead weights to your bottom bracket. But heavy bikes are bad, right?
www.pinkbike.com/news/cavalerie-anakin-first-ride-2016.html
- also aluminium frame, 160mm, with older(heavier) Pinion gearbox, and "only" 14.5kg.
Such design eliminates the need for tensioner, and the part of frame holding chainstay axle. Furthermore the rear triangle becomes wider because the chainstay has to wrap gearbox, so it probably could be thinner with no harm to stiffness.
Surely I am not the only one who finds that suspicious?
Bad PR to have your latest and greatest perform poorly against a disruptive competitor.
I can see that the author of this article has done his (probably) best to compare 2 as much identical bikes as it may possible be. On the other hand Paul missed a few “details” of the gearbox systems that are on the top list of their theoretical advantages…
First thing first, the ION bike (funny, here at Greece ION is a major... chocolate manufacturer!!!) IS NOT designed around a gearbox system. A proper gearbox bike, has no need for any tensioner at all… (Ok, I get it. How the hell are we going to compare 2 completely different bike frames, one designed to cope with the restrictions of the conventional gearing systems and one designed around a gearbox system…).
That means that “we missed” a major factor of the gearbox equipped bikes…
Also. I would prefer (by far) the comparison to run between 2 bikes WITH chain. Why add one more factor that may not be an absolute characteristic of a gearbox bike? (Next time, either both bikes with belt, or both with chain, please).
Also. There’s the very fine transmission solution of the hub gears systems, mainly referring to the speedhub (I know, I owe one for a long time now). Paul misses this alternative completely…
So,
I would like to see, for start, a comparison article among 3 hardtails, best equipped with “properly strong” tires and designed for real all mountain use. One with a conventional gearing system, one with a gearbox and one with a speedhub.
Then, using this comparison as a starting point, I would like to see a second article, using 3 similarly equipped full suspension bikes (with similar travel) that their design will take full advantage of the best properties of each transmission system.
Nice efford though.
And that's why a first comparison has to be on hardtails... One of the major (BIG) advantages of the gearbox systems is that we may skip the exposable derailleur... (or tensioner)
As for the rest (same bikes - same properties) we have to address the different systems by their best values. We cannot just “cripple” a gearbox, on our effort to squeeze it on the same “platform”…
Also.
There are so many different gearbox configurations out there. The Zerode for instance or the various speedhub (as a gearbox, without spoke flances) bikes…
I also don't see why Mtn bikers want a belt on a Mtn bike.
Force=mass x acceleration (gravity), so a heavy object will produce more force when acted on by gravity. If your drag coefficient doesn't increase by the same proportion then the highest speed you reach will be higher. So when coasting in a straight line heavier dudes can be faster because they generate more force relative to their drag.
But - when you throw other accelerations into the mix (accelerating from pedalling/pumping, braking, cornering) things get less clear. Heavier riders (and gearbox bikes) get benefits from a better sprung to unsprung ratio as mentioned in the article, which should help the heavier guys.
Pro's and cons, which is why I reckon that whether you're a smaller person like Danny Hart / Troy Brosnan or bigger heavier fellas like Peaty, one size doesn't seem to have a huge advantage over the other. Not like in a sport like basketball where if you're short you're probably at a bit of a disadvantage...Anyway, my rambling thoughts only - might be wrong so feel free to flame away :-)
1. there is raked out front geometry and then there is this thing that just looks weird
2. Grip shift...nothing like hitting a drop/gap/Jump and shifting through 4 gears when you land... :-/
3. So, it's more weight and more money?
www.pinkbike.com/news/nicolai-mojo-geometron-first-ride-2015.html
What about a trail/am gearbox with less gears, a little smaller and lower weight? Carbon framed chassis practically needed to help offset the weight of the gb. In the end it's gonna be $$$$ for quite a while. The xtreme Nicolai geo gb bikes i think have an even smaller market than a better sorted (seemingly) Taniwha.
i'd hope the tech evolve and comparisons keep coming though
For the bounce test, it would be interesting to remove the cassette and derailleur and then reperform. This would let you know the impact of redistribution of unsprung weight alone without the impact of the additional gearbox weight.
Also, to your weight comment. It's important to remember that inertia also plays a large role in descending, as does friction. I think for descending prowess there is an optimum weight (and weight distribution), and that's probably not the lightest weight possible.
I think a lot of drawbacks attributed to the Pinion are adressed by the Effigear gearbox: you can use a SRAM trigger, the rear-hub is fixed so you gain some weight + quicker engagement, the belt is constantly turning so clogging with mud while coasting downhill shouldn't be as much as an issue, you have an even better clearance as the chainring seats higher than the cranks axle. It's 9 speed only with a 440%, so less than a pinion but probably more than enough, and the overall weight is more competitive.
I don't know why Nicolai didn't spec these on their bikes (apart from the Ion 20), to me the effigear is better suited to a MTB than the Pinion...
Reasons, its not belt driven, it will be lighter but Id like to see the same specc weight comparison and then the ride esp pedalling comparison!
I think these reviews are slightly skewed not deliberately but because of the lack of true data comparisons, at the moment each gearbox bike on the market is very different to each other, but to the layman they look the same because the word gearbox!
Its about as bad as saying its a Horst Link so they must all ride the same, anyone who can ride knows not all HL bikes are created equal.
Im not trying to promote Zerode, but if buying a 27.5" bike now, I wouldnt buy anything else, theyre are a few 29ers I wish would come with a gearbox!
Saying all that and its not a deal breaker, but Id still like the option of crank choice for a gearbox (pinion u listening) shifter vs gripshift even though I was a GS fan back in the day,
So get a Taniwha to test and compare this article asap please, Im sure it wont disappoint if the above things could be improved it would be a game changer for the serious riders!
For all bikeshop bike buyers eg joe avearage the derailluer will probably still be an easy sell to them, like FS vs HT it took a decade plus before the majority switched when many said the hardtail will always be the mainstream bike, this will be the same, consumers are consumers, not intelligent, manafacturers will resist as long as they can while they can milk what they can out what they have already!
your hammerschmitt wasn't a good gauge point. horrid actually. The actual, verified efficiency loss is actually less than 5% between drivetrains. That hammer was horrid.
Paul - If you still have access to the bikes it would be interesting to test the following:
1) Mech bike with and without earplugs - Is noise really make you ride slower?
2) Mech bike with and without cassette and derailler - How much does the unsprung weight / clutch mech affect suspension?
Also it would be interesting to compare the 650b GPI with a G-13 mech bike (maybe with 140-150mm travel). My bet is the G-13 is quicker even with the mech.... or even the Evolink 140.
media.giphy.com/media/qR6UR8K1Ia2BO/giphy.gif
Then, why not just compare them from afar and chose the prettiest one? No pedaling, removing rider input, on a drivetrain review shm.
Pro gearbox: You can run a singlespeed rear hub -> better spoke angle, and evenly tensioned equal length spokes. This makes for a stronger wheel.
Pro conventional setup: Other than zero chain growth rear suspension designs, like here, a deraileur-like chain tensioner is required for the back of the bike anyways, adding weight and still being vulnerable to damage. Although, this could be added behind the BB rather than at the rear axle. Also, I'm pretty sure the Gates drive won't work in a chain-growth design, even with a mobile tensioner.
@paulaston you are one lucky guy with those two test bikes! I would give an arm and a leg for an ion-20 !
"But, on one exceptionally muddy and sticky day in Les Gets–20cm deep mud conditions–the front sprocket did clog up after it became overwhelmed with mud. The belt almost started to derail, as the packed mud lifted it away from the teeth. Some trail-side stick therapy remedied this."
Great insight, Jimmy - glad you're around...
I ride half the year in that stuff, so it will never work will it.
But yea, hopefully more development happens on this front. a 12 speed gearbox is perfect for trails imo.
"The Pinion P1.12 gearbox alone weighs 2650 - but you'll need to add the crank arms, two belts..."
So which is it? 2350 or 2650?
Also, the slo-mos at the end of each bounce test are the wrong way round (gearbox slomo after derailleur version test and vice versa)
that said i do appreciate the effort in this comparison but as i need my bikes to go up as well as down i would always choose a derailleur setup based on this. Surely the rear shock could be adjusted to correct the bounce difference could it not with a little less rebound but admittedly im lacking in knowledge in this point.
I dont want to take anything away from different approaches to solving problems but forgive me if i am skeptical of more corporate bulls#it touted as the next must have thing. and gripshift for crying out loud....i defended these in the past only to get told they suck but now there back....really. why is everyone so in need of changes i thought bikes now were awesome....if not then stop reviewing them like they are cos if a 10 grand super-bike isn't all that then don't go around stating the "climbs like a goat & descends like a beast" nonsense..oh i got a new one for ya gearbox bikes.....
"ssshhh it doesnt climb as well but dont worry about it cos it DESCENDS BETTER THAN A REAR MECH BIKE as long as you dont have any pedalling requirements"
catchey eh... oh well you better all save for carbon everything else just to offset the anchor you will be dragging with this gearbox setup increase but dont worry cos after you've coughed up your lungs reaching the top you can roll down the hill a bit quicker yay...are you f___ing kidding me.
honestly i would be much less against changes and be far more open to ideas like this if the industry hadn't tried to sell us so much crap recently.......mind you the dogma xm vid still makes me chuckle....calling a down tube the top tube and the laughable acronyms and ridiculous rear shock mount. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn7bTKb48S0
honestly though i dont mean to pick on gearbox bikes i can see the merits in there given strengths but i am worried this will be marketed to the dumb as the thing you must have to be cool and rather than just well informed people who fit the specific requirements for this buying them we will instead see them being fitted to xc bikes, trail bikes and purchased by everyone and the rear mech system that suits me better will die of due to marketing spin.
we just need a longer one of these for the people that keep breaking there mechs..
ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1RtaEJVXXXXXLXFXXq6xXFXXXY/1-Pcs-Black-Bicycle-Rear-Derailleur-Hanger-font-b-Chain-b-font-Gear-Guard-Protector-Cover.jpg
I've also read that Gates ideal application is on a fixed rear end.
"On technical singletrack the combination of the slack head angle and long top tube meant the front end had a tendency to wander away from us when we sat back in the saddle for steep sections. When we stood up, the active suspension meant lost power. It by no means struggled at climbing, and the bike's surprising light weight definitely helped, but there are plenty of bikes in the 160mm travel bracket that will out-climb the Ion 16."
So, that would lead me to believe that the segments overlap (i.e. the beginning of one segment starts before the end of the previous segment) -OR- the total time is recorded over an arbitrary distance that is no combination of any of those 5 segments. The coincidence that the total difference happens to be the sum of the average differences for the 5 segments is peculiar. But I'm asking for clarification, as I wouldn't expect such a glaring error in simple addition, especially when emphasizing the "huge," nearly 3-second average difference between the 2 bikes.
However, looking at the fastest times, the gearbox bike is definitely the winner: 281.37s vs 283.76s. Something is up with your math on that one. Or maybe mine, I don't want to check again.
It seems odd to do separate standing, coasting starts for ~40-50s runs. How much variability in a 40-50s run would be due to coasting up to speed from a standing start? In any case, the totals don't add up from any of the segment times presented, no matter how you put them together. So, maybe the "3.5 minute track" was a separate trail altogether. Of course, where the total difference came from, and why it's exactly the sum of the average differences for each stage is a complete mystery.
I'm certainly not in the market for a gearbox bike, but hopefully anybody who is does the math for him/herself.
I myself have a Taniwha somewhere between NZ and my house right now, and won't be diving too deep into this test, I'll make my own opinions.
If you're a retard, yes.
142mm hub width on the gearbox bike? (or both bikes?)
WTF do they think this is, like 2015 or somethings??
Ain't no one lookin for that outdated shiz
Hahahahaha
you can here them, [click click ka-cingka clunk-kc-ck-ck-ck click click Kekkerrrrrrrr "ARRRHHHF@&@$#@^$*!!!!]
Next thing is that no gearbox bike should ever have a need for some clunky tensioner. If it does, then it's designed wrong. That's one of the big advantages left out of your little list.
If gearbox designers can't fig' out how to make an infinitely reliable box with near (clean) derailleur efficiency that can shift at any time under any load & weighs about the same as a derailleur setup then they should take a lesson from Bob Rohloff because he figged out how to do it lotsa years ago with 14 gears. FTM frame manufacturers could probably just set up a deal to mount them in their frames replacing the hub shell with some kind of frame mount. Could even be standardized believe it or not.
Ground clearance. In addition to my 2nd point you can also consider that a gearbox does not need to have a belt, it is just an option that is not available with a dopey derailleur. You could run a chain around a couple 15T sprockets & bring your clearance up to the point where no bash guard is needed.
A GEARBOX BIKE DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE:
A tensioner.
A belt.
Higher weight than a derailleur bike.
Lower efficiency than a derailleur bike.
A need to lift pressure when shifting.
Multiple freewheels.
A grip shifter.
Honestly dude, if you're someone who's two fvcking stupid to know how to use a grip shifter by now when millions of people have had no trouble (even preferring it for some weird fvcky reason) then you're probably not qualified to be writing an article on gearboxes & maybe not even qualified to be writing about bikes at all. Furthermore, a grip shifter has nothing to do with a gearbox. It is not a limitation or disadvantage of the technology. Trigger shifters could be used, hydraulic shifters could be used. If you're $hitmano then stupid motorized shifters could be used etc. One has nothing to do with the other.
So, "when it comes to the polling station, the masses don't appear to find fault with their derailleurs" & "an overwhelming majority of people said they hadn't' broken a derailleur in the last two years". Hmmm, interesting. I must be not so good at calculatoring 'cuz when I punch in some numbers as of 17/02/17 I get 4093 that do find fault w/their derailed derailleurs compared to 5683 that either ride like bitches or work for the Big Deuce, or both. 42% of your sample of the masses, find fault. Now the really good part is that 4060 broke a derailleur in the last two years compared to the 3415 who said they never have (pussies). To that 4060 you can rightfully add the 129 that don't use one because, well you know. Then you've got 1144 that can't remember. Could be 6 months, could be 6 years, but they've broken one. Call it my personal opinion, but even if I were one of the 2098 that have broken one more than two years ago, that's still too often to be stranded on the trail, or dicking around, needing to carry extra fvcking tools "just in case" (tools you won't need to carry with a proper gearbox setup BTW) & spending hundreds of $ over & over & over. It just ain't cool.
I don't think you're that stupid, but I do think that you think your audience is THAT stupid. I think that you think that your ad for derailleurs disguised as a fair contest between your favored (corporately endorsed) obsolete tech & the superior yet unrefined new one will have the desired subconscious effects in the majority. Sadly, I'm afraid to disagree.
When you ride a hub gear which has one direct drive (Alfine 8 speed, Sturmey 3 speed) the other gears feel fine, but that direct gear feels strangely easier - gearboxes are just not as efficient, despite 100 years of development.
HARD PASS
Actually I believe I saw a pic of that bike. It's not a 4-bar suspension though is it?
I really hope Zerode continues with the DH bike. Keep it alloy frame and geared hub. Slacken it to 62 and extend the reach and wheelbase.
I was a little bummed the Zerode Enduro bike didn't utilize the high idler pulley like the prototype did. Can't have it all though.
www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/Sturmey-Archer_derailleurs_page_2.html
Not in DH/Enduro
If this could be made, a hub-gearbox can be made.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPS7aNCAwAA
- The MTB World!