Improvement and innovation are often treated as the same word by bicycle people, but they are worlds apart. Improvement is the unexpected friend-of-a-friend who pulls up an extra chair and asks to join the table. Everyone there has to shuffle a little to make room, but it’s no big deal because the diners are all familiar with the surprise guest to some degree, so they have reason to anticipate that the evening will continue as it was – only better. Innovation is the unexpected person who seems familiar, but who nobody at the table actually knows. This person asks to join without hesitation and with no extra chair in hand. The once copacetic diners are suddenly forced to make awkward decisions, reach out for consensus, and choose a leader. Should one of us leave? How important is this guy? Why doesn't someone throw the bum out? The evening could turn out wonderful, but it will be a different experience than anticipated. One can’t simply move over and make room for innovation. Innovation rearranges the entire group dynamic – and most often, in unexpected ways.Mister Roller Chain
The innovation that we owe our entire sport to is the roller chain. Pioneer bicycle inventors experimented with heavy and problematic gears and belt-drives and almost universally abandoned them in favor of the simpler and more efficient strategy of linking the cranks to the front wheel. Direct-drive bicycles, however, needed large wheels to make good speed, which led to the exaggerated Penny-Farthing, or “Ordinary” design. The smaller the wheel, the slower the bike – it was a simple formula that gave taller or longer-limbed riders a distinct advantage over those with diminutive stature. The invention of the roller chain evened the score. It was simple, efficient, and reliable when exposed to the weather, and it enabled bicycles with reasonably sized wheels to be geared up to match or better the speeds attainable by the tallest rider on a Penny Farthing.
The “Safety Bicycle” with its smaller, similar-sized wheels and its over-driven roller-chain drivetrain was never intended to be a racing machine. It was originally invented to prevent “headers” – when overzealous braking or contact with any substantial object sent the high-wheel pilot over the bars and into dreamland. The ramifications of roller chain, however, reached far beyond the safety bicycle – to the most important innovation since the invention of the wheel.
Previously, bicycles used hard rubber tires because big-wheel bikes were sold in a multitude of wheel diameters to match leg-lengths of different sized riders - which meant that tires had to be custom fit. There were no issues with multiple tire SKUs back then, one roll of rubber tubing and a length of piano wire covered every bike made. The roller chain made smaller wheels practical, which for the first time, made it possible to standardize rim diameters, which in turn, made it financially feasible for a brilliant guy named Hiram Hutchinson to manufacture the first pneumatic tires for bicycles in 1890. Roller chain, to the safety bike, to pneumatic tires and finally, the modern bicycle.
Miss Welded-AluminumWhen Gary Klein, the folks at Cannondale, and Charlie Cunningham began to weld up bicycle frames using oversized diameter aluminum tubing, they were trying to escape the weight-versus-stiffness trap that had painted traditional steel frame makers into a corner. As wonderful as steel is for making bicycles
(insert time worn comments about its magic feel and ride qualities here), the density of steel dictated that frame tubes must be drawn very thin and also used in small diameters in order to make frames that were sufficiently lightweight. Steel builders, had reached the limits of their material. Steel frames were either stiff and heavy or light and flexible – end of story.
Basic engineering upholds that small increases in the diameter of a tube will produce large improvements in its stiffness, and while alloy steel is roughly 3.5 times stronger than aluminum, because aluminum is a much lighter material, at some point, the stiffness and strength of an aluminum frame made from oversize tubes will trounce anything that sticks to a magnet. That was the magic bullet that pioneer fame makers were searching for when they fired up their TIG torches and waded hip deep into the then-unfamiliar depths of manufacturing welded-aluminum frames. What none of them envisioned, however, was that they laid the groundwork for a completely new genre.
While it can be argued that alloy steel and its non-ferrous friends, titanium and stainless steel, can be used to make a damn good hardtail, none of those materials could have ushered in the age of suspension. Paper thin frame tubes can’t handle shock-mounting tabs or pivot locations, and attempts to construct essential suspension bits like bearing housings, linkages and connecting yokes, from steel or titanium build up weight faster than Oprah Winfrey. Aluminum, by contrast, could be used in abundance where necessary without a significant weight penalty. Designers also liked it because aluminum could be more easily machined, forged, or manipulated to optimize its strength exactly where it is necessary. The progression of the modern dual-suspension bike directly follows innovations and improvements in welded-aluminum frame construction – a path which led directly to the second most influential material in the history of the modern bicycle.
It was lowly aluminum that paved the way for the carbon fiber super bikes we now worship. Sure, carbon-tubed frames predated the welded-aluminum era, but they were unimaginative bonded copies of skinny-tube steel bikes. The voluminous shapes of the modern laid-up carbon frame would have been an impossible sell when skinny steel was king. The bulbous frame tubes of those pioneer aluminum designs broke the ice, but it would take almost two decades to gain widespread acceptance among elite cyclists. During that period, aluminum taught frame designers how to maximize the qualities of low-density materials by radically profiling tubes in addition to manipulating their diameters. Aluminum designers had made all of the big leaps by the time carbon arrived on the scene. One would be hard pressed today to find a carbon frame that didn't look like its aluminum counterpart with the welds smoothed off. The ugly oversize-aluminum duckling became the TIG-welded dual-suspension mountain bike and finally, metamorphosed into the sleek, carbon-fiber swan.
Sir Disc BrakeDisc brakes may seem like a logical adaptation from motorcycles to mountain bikes and that’s pretty much how it happened. Looking back, it is a wonder that mountain bikers put up with rim brakes for so long, but timing has a lot to do with the success of all innovative products. Disc brakes for mountain bikes were not readily accepted. In fact, the entire concept was rejected by mainstream mountain bikers and the supporting industry. The burden of innovation, improvement and standardization was left to outliers like AMP Research, Formula Italy, RockShox, Dia-Compe USA and Mountain Cycles, who collectively ironed out the largest obstacles that blocked the path of acceptance off disc brakes for bicycles. Once hub makers added rotor flanges, frame and fork makers installed caliper bosses, and brake makers finally produced systems that actually stopped and ran drag free, the rim brake disappeared overnight.
Arguably, the addition of disc brakes marked the beginning of the modern downhill bike. Downhill racing existed before the dawn of disc brakes, but without a precise and reliable means to slow the bike down, DH racing was more of a hazardous occupation than an actual sport. A simple dinged or bent rim, a common occurrence during race runs, resulted in horrid drag, erratic brake-pulsing and unexpected lockups. During bad weather, or on long tracks, rim brakes performed so poorly that some riders were happy just to make it down the mountain in one piece. It was the disc brake’s consistent, all-weather stopping and precise modulation that was the DH bike’s missing link. For the first time, braking became intuitive, and for the first time, riders were in complete control of their speed from the starting box to the finish line.
Beyond all-weather fade-free braking and the promise of quick and easy pad changes, disc brakes gave suspension and frame makers the freedom to configure their designs to be wider near the tires where they were once constrained by the brake’s pivot-boss locations, which in turn allowed for the use of the wider rims and high-volume tires which became the foundation for the development of the AM/trailbike – and that brings us to an unexpected bonus and to the creation of a multi-million-dollar industry – both of which were made possible by disc brakes.
Spoke wrenches were almost as important as spare tubes in the early days of mountain biking, because a few millimeters of side play in a rim would cause it to rub the rubber brake pads which by their nature, created more friction at low speed than they did at pace. Damaging a wheel in a crash usually meant that the rim brake had to be disarmed so the semi-repaired wheel could spin without banging on the brakes. For a racer, that meant, “End of story.” Today, a wheel has to be destroyed before it will prevent its rider from finishing a race run or riding back to the trailhead. The only reason to carry a spoke wrench now is to be able to salvage a wheel to make it home – which was also great news for once struggling wheel makers.
Before the wholesale switch to disc brakes, pre-built wheel makers had to warranty wheels just because they wiggled a tiny bit. Customers who paid big bucks for hoops would not put up with any amount of contact with the brake pads. Disc brake customers, by contrast, did not seem to care about significant amounts of run-out, as long as the integrity of their wheels was not compromised. The big downer for rim brake users was that, even if their wheels remained straight and tight, brake pads wore them down quickly, especially in wet conditions. For safety’s sake, rim flanges had to be made thicker and heavier to compensate for wear and to provide wide tracks for the pads to contact.
Without such constraints, wheel makers were freed to either move all that material somewhere else on the rim where it would add more strength, or to take it out and make a lighter weight rim. With no need for braking tracks, wheel designers began to explore better, stronger rim designs – and because they did not have to factor in the excessive heat generated by rim brakes
(a problem that plagues the road bike industry today), they encountered few problems adapting carbon fiber construction to mountain bike wheels. In the end, it was the disc brake that made it possible for a wheel maker to sell Joe Mountain Bikers a long-lasting, lightweight wheelset, and back it up with an extended warranty. Disc brakes literally revolutionized the mountain bike wheel.
I end this jog though mountain bike history with a simple improvement - certainly not a profound innovation - but one that demonstrates how a small gesture, like making room for a familiar guest at the table, can also have a profound effect upon all who are present.
Mister XSRAM’s commitment to the one-by drivetrain was precipitated by a widespread grassroots movement to ditch the front derailleur. No simplification comes without compromise, however, and because the existing 11 x 36, ten-speed cassette limited their gearing options, one-by pioneers had to choose between ten gears that produced good speed, but were a bit too tough for climbing, or ten that favored climbing, but couldn't make good speed. There was also one very embarrassing and rarely discussed thing that early adopters did that in retrospect, is quite funny. Front derailleur haters replaced their well-engineered adjustable metal derailleur cages with cheap, poorly fitting plastic copies intended to mimic the same function. That is the equivalent of moving out of your house and living in a tent in the front yard.
SRAM handily solved both problems, the first, with an elegantly made, wide-range eleven-speed cassette that offered one-by riders gear options for every situation one may encounter on the dirt – and it solved the embarrassment of sporting a “damn right this was made in China” plastic derailleur cage by adapting the now-famous narrow-wide tooth profile to the chainring and derailleur-pulleys to keep the chain where it is supposed to be. SRAM’s XX1 one-by drivetrain set the bar high. It was better looking and significantly lighter than any two-by system, easier to tune and maintain, and easier and more intuitive to operate. Initially, one-by subscribers and most hard core riders were thrilled, but a large percentage of potential customers and bike makers remained non plussed. Regardless, SRAM’s XX1 drivetrain sales steadily mounted like a distant rogue wave heading for a popular surf break. Like it or not, the one-by drivetrain was going to hit hard and everyone in the water was going to suck some salt.
On the surface, SRAM appears to have hit a home run and it is almost predestined that all enthusiast-level mountain bikes of the future will be sold with wide-range one-by drivetrains. SRAM, however, may have created a second industry. One made up of a growing number of small competitors who at present, are busting out cranksets and narrow-wide chainrings by the thousands. Already, we are seeing a number of big-brand bikes being spec’ed with SRAM XX1 derailleurs, shifters and cassettes, but with Race Face, or e*Thirteen, or some other boutique brand’s crankset – replete with a narrow-wide chainring in place of the presumably pricier SRAM item.
Cranksets and chainrings are low-hanging fruit for small parts makers who were once shut out of the market by Shimano's and SRAM’s mastery of the complex ramps, pins and other shifting aids that are necessary to coax a two- or three-chainring crankset to shift crisply under load. By eliminating the front derailleur, SRAM inadvertently eliminated the barriers of entry for its competitors to successfully market alternative drivetrain parts to OEM customers – and it doesn't stop at cranksets.
Shimano has to be worried after its release of Deore XT and more recently, XTR, did not convince OEM or aftermarket customers that the front derailleur was still king and that the “other guy’s” wide-range one-by drivetrain was only a passing fad. Even if Shimano does respond to SRAM with a true wide range one-by drivetrain system with a chainring that can match SRAM’s narrow-wide performance - and it manages to reclaim all of its former customers - the damage has been done. If customers can successfully substitute SRAM’s crankset and chainrings, they can just as easily substitute Shimano’s – and history says they will.
All tallied, that leaves Shimano with a rear derailleur; presumably, a wide-range cassette; a right-side shifter; the recognized best braking system; and presently, the only viable electronic shifting system. SRAM is down to the best wide-range cassette; the best one-by-specific rear derailleur; a right-side shifter; and a competitive braking system. But if one scrutinizes SRAM’s XX1 rear derailleur, it becomes clear that the simplification brought on by the one-by drivetrain also extends to the rear mech. The fact that there is only one chainring means that a simple offset pulley cage can be configured to exactly match the angle scribed by the cassette sprockets as the changer takes up or metes out chain between shifts. Providing that a clever parts maker can find a way to squeeze between Shimano and SRAM and produce a legal clutch system, making a Shimano or SRAM-compatible rear mech would now be a relatively easy task. Are you feeling uncomfortable? I am.
So, let’s take this into the future. Consider that the most complicated aspect of Shimano’s electronic Di2 XTR shifting system is its front changer, which memorizes where the rear derailleur is at any given time and automatically makes fine lateral adjustments as the operator calls for shifts across the cassette sprockets. Also consider that the extraordinary amount of force required to press the chain against the chainring ramps and produce a crisp shift means that the large and powerful servo motor of Shimano’s Di2 front mech also uses the lion's share of the system's battery power.
So, what if there were no front derailleur? Remarkably, Shimano’s Di2 can go for an entire riding season on a single charge. Imagine how long it could go without the draw-down of the Di2 front mech? Imagine also, how simple it would be if a competing drivetrain maker, like SRAM, or some smaller parts maker, only had to electrify the rear changer? No need to get too fancy, just add a low-power servo motor, some sprocket recognition software and boom – push-button one-by shifting. It seems that SRAM did more than perfect the wide-range, one-by mountain bike drivetrain when it developed XX1. The folks from Chicago may have inadvertently launched the industry’s second cottage-industry component revolution. However it goes down, we can be certain that the bicycle industry will never be the same from here on out.
great article, and very interesting to me as I was involved during the early 90s doing R&D work with Sachs (now SRAM), IRC Tire, AMP, RST, Wellgo, Kore, Selle San Marco, Azonic, Vans, TWP, Noleen and a number of other companies, through my fledgling company "Bombproof Bikes" in North-East England.
We ran our own Factory Downhill Race Team, and fed all our findings of using prototype equipment straight back to our Team sponsors.
ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb9285978/p4pb9285978.jpg
Here is the first Sachs hydraulic disc brake we fitted to a Rockshox Judy DH fork, before Rockshox had developed a casting with disc brake mounts:
ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb9286061/p4pb9286061.jpg
Here is one of our race bikes from early 1994, using an early AMP research rear suspension system with horst pivot and coil/oil shock, and 1 x 8 drivetrain with the Sachs New Success front derailleur locked into place using limit screws, and TWP's rear mech tensioner controlling chain tension out back.
ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb5488175/p4pb5488175.jpg
The contemporary mountain bike is truly an incredible piece of design / engineering, and as someone who started mountain biking in 1986, I've been very lucky to have lived through this period to see the paradigm shift
I also had the pleasure of rocking a Judy DH with two damping cartridges and Eibach springs. Also, i think that chain tensioner is actually a Bullet Bros, no?
yes, my mistake about the chain tensioner (its been a few years!) - definitely made by "Bullet Bros." in the USA
Some of the other curious components we used from Sachs included their hydraulic brake lever and pump - which terminated in a regular brake cable to allow use of normal cantilevers or v-brakes
and their "3x7" gear hub allowing 7 speed cassette with 3 speed internal gears, running single ring at front still gave massive gear range. Ideal for Dual-Slalom racing!
Not trying to argue bmx is better than mountain bikes or anything. I will admit bmx bikes are the lowest on the spectrum when it comes to new technology. But everything on a bmx bike can work perfectly if you have the right mechanic and quality parts just like any other bike.
Headset quality is less to do with whether the bars will turn freely and more to do with how easily the bearings flog out and develop noise and/or play. Not all BMX headsets have sealed bearings (that said, not all MTB ones do either).
In some cases you physically can't align the rear wheel without chaintugs unless you're prepared to readjust the thing 30 times to see if one of those times it'll sit straight. If the dropouts are gouged up or misaligned (which if the bike isn't brand new, they usually are) then the nut will grab one side of the slot more than the other and try to pull the wheel around. Not helped by the fact that being horizontal drops, they need to have knurled nuts holding the things on otherwise they slip.
Also comparing even the best BMX brakes to run of the mill disc brakes is like comparing jerking off to having sex. Both have a similar end goal in mind but one is clearly better than the other!
we co-sponsored an event in London recently called "Parkour Ride" which was a head-to-head eliminator event in a multi-storey car parking building.
ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb11489249/p4pb11489249.jpg
I had the pleasure of working on World BMX race champion Liam Phillips bike, but let him set his chain tension as he wanted it "just right". Not joking, he must have set it and reset it about 30 times before he was happy, not easy with horizontal dropouts on an aluminium alloy race BMX.
Actually not at all. We replaced our front derailleurs (designed to take a move a chain off and on a chainring) with chain guides (designed to keep a chain on a chainring) - they don't have the same function, at all. As for that being like "moving out of your house and living in a tent in the front yard" - I don't follow.
"and it solved the embarrassment of sporting a “damn right this was made in China” plastic derailleur cage by adapting the now-famous narrow-wide tooth profile to the chainring and derailleur-pulleys to keep the chain where it is supposed to be."
Again chain guides aren't derailleurs, and as far as the “damn right this was made in China” comment, our guides are comprised of more domestically produced parts than any front derailleur you'll find. Also, I've never felt stigmatized or embarrassed for running a chain guide.
The biggest breakthrough in drivetrain technology in the last few years was Shadow +.
By the way I am likely never going to remove my top chainguide- I just had a fried drop his chain on a carbon frame and it left some nasty nasty looking damage. and there is nothing wrong with a bash guard by the way not sure about anyone else but at the end of long ride (20+ miles like TWE are my limit) I have made mistakes or gotten sloppy and been in a position where the bashguard is nice to have. Its save the chain and ring. Not all chain guides are made equal and I love mine.
Oh and the whole "and it solved the embarrassment of sporting a “damn right this was made in China" really? really? RC thats about as screwed up a statement as they come. Wholly crap that was ironic....thanks Noah for pulling that one back up to my attention.
Cannot get the noisy front mech thing. Mine is Shim XT and I don't have any noise from it.
Can you give me the others good reasons to run 1x (let's say SRAM XX1) versus 3x10 ? (let's say shim XT 11-36, 22-30-40) ?
Thanks
I use a 2x10 with an E-Thirteen chain DRG, never lose my chain. I am VERY interested in the 1x 11 setup but not a fan of having to jump 4t on 1 gear shift while on a steep & technical climb, that would probably kill me.
I haven't seen 3x10 on a mountain bike since the 90's, you are talking about mountain bike right? 3x means you need a very long chain which is extremely problematic off road. We just don't need that kind of range, but I guess it depends where and what you ride. Key advantages are fairly obvious: no more drops, weight, clutter, simplicity, noise(the chain does rattle around in the front mech fact) with a clutch rear it's virtually silent, and once you've experienced the quiet ride you'll never go back.
I haven't seen 3x10 on a mountain bike since the 90's,
Reading you it seems that things have changed a lot since 90'
If you haven't run a triple since 90', you should try one, you would be surprised ;-)
you are talking about mountain bike right?
Yes, I'm precisely talking about MOUNTAIN bike, like in the mountains, you know, where you have to go up if you want to enjoy the downs, and where triple are still very fashionable and reliable things when you go higher than 2000m ;-)
Chain drops, reliability, clutter: that's precisely the major issues you find if you look for 1x drawbacks (thinner chain, huge crossings).
Weight ? I don't have to run any anti-d with a front derailleur and a clutch rear d, and I don't need this fancy 42 tooth gear, which is a rotating part so its dynamic weight is increased.
So finally weight gain in anecdotic if you compare working setups between 1x and 3x.
Last thing, noise. Most of the noise you heard was about ragging against chainstays, and that was fixed some years ago by clutch derailleur (or anti-d), as anybody can told you. Try to run a 1x setup without a clutch-type rear d and anti-d and you will hear your chain again. Since I run a clutch der, I never years my chain again.
I don't think weight saving are anecdote when you pedal to the top. I dropped a significant 700 grams, thought that includes new carbon crank and direct mount wide/narrow... which is a glorious thing. Also this ring is still good after 3 new chain swaps. Regular chainrings are expensive and need to be replaced with every new chain, no more fussing around with those stupid bolts.
Also, most gears on a triple overlap. You get a little more at the top and bottom, most of us don't need it.
I think you pretty much have it all wrong in your last comment...
You seems to know a lot about Prairie punks. Is your last comment an exemplification of the way they argue ?
So if your last stupidity is your final argument, then thank you for giving me right.
And I'm still confident that money goes to the smarter guy, thank you very much again for taking care.
By the way, If I need to buy some used stuff I will give you a call.
For the rider, 1x is a nice tweak. But it won't change things in the same way as aluminum/composite bikes with suspension, or disc brakes. It's something you wait for your next bike purchase, rather than feeling compelled to never ride your old bike again or having to upgrade right now.
ex.Dropper post actuators, Di2 rear shifting from the left (not sure why anyone would), remote lockouts, remote cpu or music controls, go pro remotes etc...hell, drone control stick...nah that maybe a stretch...
SRAM changed the course pretty early after the patent got issued and started licensing it.
So if you where one of this many companies that RC sees emerging from this great innovation you can pay sram a fee until 2032 when the patent expires...
And there is many others around the clutch mechanism or electronic shifting.
Problem is a lot of patents just got filed recently and USPTO takes forever to work on them so they are not issued yet and you can not find out about them until they gut issued and published. Europe is a bit better.
Anyway if you are a small company and do wat RC suggest chances are good you invest a lot of money in RnD and once you are done and ready to hit the market a Shimano Patent gets published and you can not sell your product. its a F-ing minefield out there...
Her is a link to N/W. gives you and idea about how long it takes in Euro-land.
www.google.com/patents/EP2602176A1?cl=en
US is usually slower because they have kind of a weird random system to deal with prior art.
Yes N/W are actually quite common in engines for timing chain wheels or many other mechanical systems like garage doors or fork lifts...
Anyway SRAM has it for Cycling and apparently it has still been considered an original invention by both European and us patent clerks for Cycling specific applications.
But then again, the must smoke really some good weed there at USPTO. Have you heard about Amazons patent for product pictures on a white background? like no one has done that ever before... the devil is in the detail....
You probably could go around their claims quite easily form an engineering point of view but you most likely will not be able to afford proofing the fact that you do not violate their patent in a court against someone as big (and loaded with money) as SRAM ...
Would worth mentionning HOPE TECHNOLOGY, making their first mtb disc brake in 1989 and on the market in 1991...
However the first paragraph in mrXX is bollocks Narrow wide is awesome, it is absolutely incredible but by the time it arrived chain guides were bloody dialed, at least those with bashguard, not those mud hugging taco fashionisms. Aaand you have to admit that the marvellous front derailleur was never great at keeping chain on the middle ring.
Maybe I'm not a good enough biker yet, but on my 1x11 drivetrain I just use a small chainring so I can climb anything, while the upper range has never been an issue. I can probably count on my fingers the number of times I've event used the highest gear. On the downhills gravity is usually sufficient for my speed needs. As to chainguides - nope, don't run them, either on my AM bike or my DH bike. Narrow-wide and a clutch derailleur is more than good enough. I've only ever dropped a single chain, and that was because I got caught out in the rain riding clay terrain; I had so much thick gunk stuck in my chainring the chain was riding almost a whole centimeter above the teeth. No chainguide would have helped there.
Ain't gonna happen. Gearboxes will be a much better solution for FS bikes.
When the transmitio. Fits in the bb and doesn't make noise like a Hammerschmidt then gearbox has a fighting chance.
1. 1x systems are not new nor are they revolutionary. The front derailluer is the biggest problem that was never a problem: I have been riding for 20 years, I have broken lots of parts, but never a front derailleur...
The narrow wide chain , on the other hand, is new and improved things quite a bit.
2. Shimano does not have the best braking system. I am not really sure if there is a best system since most systems are pretty good, so it comes down to lever feel and how much braking power you want to have versus modulation and weight for the application.
How about Pinkbike does a brake shoot out?
If the chain fell i did pedal stroke and the chain was back where it was supposed to be.
No I have a N/W and i have to stop, grab the chain, get my hands greasy, line the chain and the ring up and lift the chain back into place... now that's innovative...
I have NEVER dropped a chain on N/W chainring despite having no chain guide device, even without a clutch rear derailleur.
Just checking : Are we talking about a front derailleur (device shifting gears on cogs placed on a crankset) on a mountain bike riding in off-road conditions?
Yes we do talk about the same thing. I lost it all the time racing.
probably you are right though, non of these guys is using a chain guide either:
www.pinkbike.com/news/crankworx-2014-enduro-world-series-bike-checks.html
oh wait, it is the other way round every single one is on the bikes than use one by setups.
ever considered you might be going to slow into the technical sections to have your chain fly off?
If you carry your bike over the rocks the chain stays on for sure...
Would I put upper guide on N/W if I went to Whistler? - Yes, just like a massive bash ring. Ahhh and you know guys at Hive and MRP say - you need upper guide mainly for full sussers being deeply compressed in a low speed manner, that is landings and transitions of jumps? I will use that bit: it is evolution and you can't stop it, why are you so affraid of change hahahaha aha ah ah oh oh... oh... oh.. uh... yea... ehhh... you haven't tried riding with a narrow wide haven't you?
As for my setup on the bike i ride the most these days: XTR with RF N/W direct ring but build back to 2x because of a trail i did 2 weeks ago that had me pedal up to a good 3400m or 11.500ft above see level and i simply wanted to ride up and not push my bike but at the same time not spin out on the fast downhill sections.
I will probably not switch back to 1x as i don't see a disadvantage in having two rings up front to choose from and there is no significant weight advantage as soon as you start running a chain guides and stuff.
I also ride a X01 bike a lot lately but just cant get used to the sram trigger. I simply like the shimano index finger shifting option better so even with the better somewhat better range of the 11 speed cassette i am not really getting friendly with that thing.
Point is not everything new thing is great or might be very specific to a certain use.
Don't tell me you are still running the biggest innovation of the late 90ies, the 24" rear wheel? Must look funny with 29" out front just to make sure every every possible trend is covered!
And yes i am lucky enough to ride exactly where those guys do and from time to time even with those guys.
Weight advantage: still 450 grams. Not significant?
I think the bigger jump will be if/when SRAM/Rockshox comes out with semi-active suspension. There is already rudimentary systems out there by most the major suspension brands. Marzocchi, however, is leading the field with their moto technology (www.moto-choice.com/en/Press-Releases/430/marzocchi-introduces-a-complete-semi-active-suspension-system-for-motorcycles.html). The Marzocchi system operates on both compression and rebound, and has one third the response time of Rockhox offerings.
I hope that SRAM will see the benefit of combining electronic controls for suspension and drivetrain and sharing sensors etc. Beyond that, as cool as 1-by shifting is (I do think it's a significant innovation), I'd like to see it replaced by a gearbox (if the weight can ever be brought down to reasonable levels) or some new concept that will allow shifting without turning the cranks, allowing for an automatic drivetrain. Imagine forgetting to downshift going into a tight switchback, coasting around the corner, and sprinting out the other side at high RPM because the bike downshifted for you in the corner because it noticed that you had slowed down.
The technology already exists to do everything I mentioned above. It's just a matter of the right manufacturers getting ahold of it and packaging it for a mountain bike. I just hope that the technology to package all those features takes years and note decades.
P.S. Don't even consider adding electric drive to that equation. If 100% of the power doesn't come from your legs, you'll have to find another name for it because it's not a bicycle.
Ferritic
Martensitic (including precipitation hardening steels)
Austenitic
Duplex steels, consisting of mixture of ferrite and austenite
No, I'm not feeling uncomfortable and I don't understand what the whole point of the article is. Why are you feeling uncomfortable? I'm sure Shimano and sram will survive and even if they didn't the sport surely will.
The last paragraph is completely over the top, big deal if someone makes a rear-only electric derailleur. We shouldn't even be riding with derailleurs anymore, hopefully producing a dominant internal drivetrain will be the next big progress that some small company brings us, not incremental small improvements to the archaic, lame, & unreliable derailleur system
You're basically just jerking off a bunch of bike geeks but not making any real relative statements in the article, but there was some interesting nostalgia in there.
-disk brakes
-5/10 shoes / flat pedals with grip
-dropper posts
-suspension
-Tubeless ready tires and rims
One thing that can't be overstated enough I feel....just how awful Aluminium hardtails are in terms of fun and enjoyment. Sure they'll get you there probably nearly as quickly as any other frame material, but hardtails in steel, ti and carbon just ride so much better. Aluminium for the non-competitive user is dreadful at anything other than on a full squish bike.
I slightly disagree with the one-by thing though.
Yes, SRAM released a very good system with their XX! Drivetrain, yet the Market for 1x11 Drivetrains is not that big if you keep considering the XC and AM Crowd, or entry-level bikes for example. Yes, many have the leg-power, most don't. So there IS and WILL BE a market for two-by cranksets in the Future.
OEM Enduro Bikes, OK, SRAM has won on that field. But Everything else, and not to forget the Brake Business and Road Components, Shimano is pretty much the Business.
So where I disagree with you is: Shimano doesn't have to be scared. In no way whatsoever.
After all, the XTR has a pretty wide ration if you run it with a single Ring setup, not to forget that it fits on a 10sp freehub body.
In my opinion it still comes down to personal preference. Based on past and recent experiences, I would always go the Shimano route.
You'll see how they went from, " woohoo! " to " WTF were you thinking man?" Not to mention how specific your frame had to be to be able simply to install one. Wow, the image of it alone gives me a hernia.
Thank you disc brakes
Thank you suspension systems
thank you aerospace for bringing it all together !!!!
Regarding the electronic shifting bits, SRAM has already debuted the CX1 Cyclocross grupo, with a servo-operated RD and N/W chainrings.
I would predict the natural evolution will lead to integrated gearboxes using much lighter materials . Rebuilds would not be out
of the question due to these much lighter materials. Sealed oil baths, sealed shifter motors. Holy shit that would be awesome.Maybe even Gates belt final drives.
If you think about it, the possibility of drivetrain integration would free up chassis designers to do even more amazing things w/o as much focus on multiple pivots and IC's.
Electric shifting would be a very useful tool with this system as well w/o nearly as much potential for damage and failure.
We will be riding a human powered gearbox driven full suspension, aka a very low HP moto bike.
Yes you would not have any flats ever again but...
Most stuff we get thees days is because its cheaper to produce and not because it is better. It helps the companies to achieve a better margin and deal with the ever rising marketing costs.
Keeping the BS a nice and steady stream cost a lot...
www.pinkbike.com/video/343829
But gearing manufactures would make less money, so they will not let it happen?
nuseti.com
" It weighs about as much as your house and costs more than a night with the Olsen twins."