Opinion: Improvement, Innovation, and Unanticipated Consequences

Nov 6, 2014
by Richard Cunningham  
just sayin RC header pic


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-Aluminum

When 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 Brake

Disc 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 X

SRAM’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.





Posted In:
Stories


Author Info:
RichardCunningham avatar

Member since Mar 23, 2011
974 articles

171 Comments
  • 87 0
 @RC

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
  • 27 3
 Thanks for sharing man - AWESOME! Big Grin
  • 4 0
 Ha! I still have a Judy! Remember back when bikes would come with a disc brake in the front and a rim brake in the rear?
  • 4 0
 have to give a nod to the riders and trail builders who've progressed and pushed this sport to evolve and inspire these advances. haha judys. trade ya my slingshot...
  • 2 0
 Bad@$$! Thanks for sharing the pics. I was just a wee lad when all of this was going on.
  • 1 1
 The Sachs disc brakes run a little counter to the argument that only outliers had a go at disc brakes. Sachs were a huge company, tried and failed miserably. V brakes worked so much better than Sachs brakes ever did, even in the wet.

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?
  • 1 0
 Wow, I can pick one of those up at Wal-Mart now!!! Thank you trickle down technology!!
  • 2 0
 I've still got one of those Sachs Powerstop disc brakes in my cellar! I paid £200 for a pair of them and a pair of Mavic 121 wheels to go on my Pace hardtail with RST Mozo Pro 3.5's. Properly showing my age!
  • 1 0
 "Cunning Ham jabs Oprah"
  • 1 0
 @SiSandro

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!
  • 48 3
 Lots of great innovation. The person who invented bb30/pf30 though, should be beaten with a shitty stick.
  • 13 0
 twice and then kicked....
  • 5 4
 why?
  • 19 0
 Poor lifespan, overly reliant on high tolerances (more than can be delivered in mass production), flexy bb shell, poor crank choice, shortens frame life span, tendency to creak (see points 1-3), offers no improvement over a BSA bb to the end user (but it saves manufacturer a few bucks a frame). Take your pick Motdrawde!
  • 3 0
 cannondale did
  • 8 0
 I want to know who specifically, so I can send them a turd in a box as a thank you.
  • 2 0
 Legit question here; why does the bmx world (freestyle) all use press fit bb's? From my riding they seem to work fine.
  • 4 3
 For carbon frames, they're etter, since cutting threads in carbon is pretty hard...but yeah, if you're a designer who put a pressfit bb on an aluminum frame, kill yourself
  • 5 1
 @Vans4life14 BMXes haven't actually changed for almost 30 years. There's a running joke in a lot of bike shops about the "bmx toolbox" which consists of an adjustable wrench and a hammer. They're primitive as hell, and there are more than enough BMXes out there with serious creaking issues in the BB. The fact that they've been around for ages in the BMX world doesn't mean it's worked well - nothing on most BMXes works well; the brakes are a joke, the headsets suck even with half the leverage of a MTB fork, the cranks and BBs are horrendous, aligning the rear wheel requires aftermarket chain tugs that for whatever reason never seem to come with the bike, blah blah. The only thing BMXes actually do well is take an absolute hammering day in day out without catastrophic failure. I guess that's the upside of having hardly any moving parts.
  • 1 0
 @socket i guess I'm a lot more picky with my bikes l
  • 3 0
 Stupid phone ignore my last comment. @Socket I think most of the problems with bmx have to do with crappy stock parts and most bmxers not knowing how to properly work on bikes such as my friends who don't know the meaning of the word grease. I've never had my bb or cranks squeak unless its coming from my chain and that's when I know it needs to be lubed. There was one bike that my ex had that the cranks squeaked only because it was a stock bike cheaper than mine and the cranks had no proper pinch bolt to hold the sprocket on. As for headsets I think there on par with any moutain bike headset they all have sealed bearings and idk how they would be crappy if bmxers are able to do triple barspins and tailwhips. Aligning the rear wheel just takes some know how, I picked up a handy trick so I can get my rear wheel aligned and chain tensioned in less than a minuet without chain tugs. Anyone who has been in the sport for a decent time know that you can set up bmx brakes to stop just as well as disc brakes just maybe not as consistent but still.

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.
  • 1 0
 I would also like to point out that being a part time mechainc at a bike shop and being the son of a dad with at least 20 bikes in the garage (no bmx bikes) there are a hell of a lot of bikes in general that squeak at the bb/cranks, road and mountain.
  • 2 1
 Agreed about lots of BB/crank interfaces creaking, but in my experience BMXes are the worst of the lot in that regard. And don't get me wrong, BMX in general is rad, but the bikes are usually - not always, but usually - quite poorly built, in terms of design, manufacture and assembly. I say this as someone who's worked on pretty well every type of bicycle conceivable for the past 10 years. They don't need to be high tech, I suppose that's the whole point of them - they're simple, tough nuggets you can crash time and time again and it's reasonable to expect most BMXes to still be rideable afterwards. Mountain bikes are definitely more fragile in that sense.

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!
  • 3 0
 Back to the original point though - BMXes use press fit BBs because it's simple, cheap, you can remove/install with a hammer (critical sales feature for most BMXers hahah), and because they've always done it that way. The frames are also steel which means the interface between the bearing race and the frame only has to deal with oxidation rather than the galvanic corrosion between alloy frame/steel race (same reason you have to grease your axles before putting them through front hubs, the two materials will seize otherwise).
  • 1 1
 @Socket cool that answers my original question. So I guess press fit bb's wouldn't be that bad then if all mountain bikes were still made out of cro-mo? Also nice analogy to the brakes haha.
  • 2 0
 my mtb needs lovin after nearly every ride. my bmx bike gets the crap beat out of it and has needed absolutely no maintenance for over 15 years. yes it is a good bike (terrible 1) but it still costs about 1/4th as much as my mtb. i think i like bulletproof over innovation sometimes. just sayin
  • 1 0
 Great analogy socket you funny fucker!
  • 2 0
 @Socket

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.
  • 26 0
 What a fantastic article. One of the most informative I've read for a while. If that's not a motivation for all the budding designers out there to potentially become a major player in the industry, not sure what is.
  • 25 1
 SRAM XX is actually a two-by drivetrain...
  • 5 0
 Yes, I guess this an error in the text and all XX should be replaced by XX1...
  • 4 2
 XX was a nick-name in the text, but I agree that it was misleading. Thanks for the suggestion - Fixed.
  • 22 2
 "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."

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 +.
  • 5 3
 Buahahahah you nailed it Noah- typical RC stuff. I actually like the majority of the article but once I caught this through my second read.

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.
  • 6 1
 Chain guides will continue to be an integral piece of the 1x setup because the fact of the matter is, Narrow-Wide or any variation of the idea do not effectively retain the chain on the chain ring.
  • 3 0
 Put the hammer down Noah!!!
  • 3 0
 exactly dlstucki ! when the going gets rough the chain comes off if you have no chain guide !
  • 3 0
 Among other things, 'quiet' is a good a reason to run 1x. Switching out the noisy front mech for a silent plastic top guide was easily the best upgrade my ride has seen in a while.
  • 1 1
 @dirtdoctor

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
  • 3 0
 I went 1x11 because I like the fact I don't have to ever think what ring I am up front and I have access to my dropper post without the clutter of a front shifter in the way. I also have not had an issue in running out gears unless I am riding my bike to the trails and I am on pavement, then I find I am exceeding what my smallest cog can do but on the trails I have had no issues with topping out my speed or being unable to climb. I found it amazing. I have a triple on one of my bikes still and I find I never use it for anything other than pavement now.
  • 2 0
 please never pick up the HammerSchmidt Noah.....

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.
  • 1 0
 @gnralized

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.
  • 1 1
 @dirtdoctor

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.
  • 2 0
 @Noah, I think he's going a little further back than current chainguide technology when he references the chinese plastic pieces that were used to substitute the function of a front mech. The OP was most likely going back to the old school hacks fabricated to solve a problem now solved by the addition of clutch derailleurs, narrow wide, and the beautifully engineered chain guides of today. But you can take it as a personal knock to your modern day chainguide if you would like. 1X drivetrains and people using them have been around a lot longer than the invention by SRAM.
  • 1 0
 @gnralized

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.
  • 1 0
 @gnralized

I think you pretty much have it all wrong in your last comment...
  • 2 0
 I played along, but gnarlized is just some Prairie punk living at home, wondering if he can afford new Kool Stops for his V brakes.
  • 1 0
 @dirtdoctor

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.
  • 16 0
 Nice analysis. I'd argue, however, that 1x11 (or 1x in general) is much less dramatic in impact on people's ride than the first three. Even droppers (which seem more significant in impact on the average trail/AM rider than 1x, IMHO) aren't anywhere close. Thought experiment - try to imagine modern trail/AM riding for the masses (not the few experts who always did amazing stuff on crap gear) without the roller chain - impossible. Now imagine it with steel bikes (and no suspension...) and rim brakes - huge difference in what's doable; only a tiny percentage of people who now routinely rip what would have been considered advanced terrain back in the day would be able to enjoy that. Those are quantum leap sort of improvements.

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.
  • 2 2
 I agree. Xx1's biggest contribution to the industry is either the narrow wide ring, or the fact that a bunch of companies now sell modifications for your cassette, two things that are minor, but are a bigger deal than adding a cog. When he brought xx1 I had to roll my eyes. At that point he lost me on what had been been a great article.
  • 2 2
 Agreed, 1x is groovy, but it's not a game-changer in the same way that chains, pneumatic tires, Al frames, disc brakes and suspension [how the hell did that get left off the list?] are.
  • 11 0
 The revolutionary part of the XX1 stuff according to the author isn't for the rider as much as it is for opening the market up to smaller manufacturers to produce interesting products. It is now easier than ever to bring out a shifter/derailleur/cranset/cassette/chainring and have it work with the rest of the drivetrain someone already has on their bike. This means that development costs for a drivetrain can be spread out over years rather than having to be put up up front. As I understood it, what the venerable Mr Cunningham is saying is that the XX1 drivetrain will be the root of the next big shift in mountain biking: to more independant companies coming out with more innovative and interesting products which still work well with the rest of the drivetrain.... Or I might be wrong.
  • 3 1
 Ia gree droppers are way more significant than XX
  • 2 0
 1x11 or 1x in general definitely makes your left thumb available to operate other devices.

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...
  • 2 0
 @Patrick9-32, You're right - there is a disruption from all this, but it's a supply chain disruption. Basically, it makes it harder for the big two to lock us into proprietary drive train options. Significant, yes. I would argue that those independent companies will indeed come up with innovative products that otherwise wouldn't have seen the light of day - but all that will do is to create a bit of a transition period where, while the fully integrated 1x solution from SRAM is still expensive, you can cobble it together with other parts. XX -> X01 -> X1 has already happened - how long until SRAM comes out with a truly mid-market solution? The indies allow us to use 1x without updating our cranks, since we can now mount NW on anything we already run. I got this awesome small chainring from a place in the UK that bolts to the 64bcd small ring mount on my 2x SRAM crank that came with my bike, along with a bashguard that bolts onto the 104bcd big ring mount. Sweet - that means I don't have to replace my crank assembly and can get into 1x for less money. But the next (decidedly low/mid range) bike I buy will already have a 1x ready crank, and a 1x drivetrain. Maybe they'll spec the crank (or chanring) from Raceface or E13 - most likely, it will be whatever SRAM releases over the next few years as entry level 1x stuff...
  • 1 1
 Patrick9-32 - i think you are wrong, or better RC is wrong. Sram plastered the whole X1 thing with so many patents from the smaller driver to narrow-wide they will sue the s**t (and live) out of small companies attempting to do any product based on it.
  • 2 0
 Except tons of narrow wides are out there already. Is there pending litigation?
  • 2 0
 Yes there is: European patent EP2602176A1
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.
  • 1 0
 @taletotell IIRC, SRAM has patents on things like the ring-crank interface, cassette cog profiles, individual chainring tooth profiles, etc. Narrow-wide is a concept that has been around for a loooong time outside of the cycling biz, and would be difficult to patent. The roller chain has been around since the 19th century, and I have a hard time believing that nobody figured out matching chainwheel tooth profiles to a chain before SRAM. I don't think there is pending litigation, but the US legal system has done more with less...
  • 1 0
 pinkrobe
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 ...
  • 1 1
 @michibretz Thanks for the clarification on the patent issue. I have heard of the Amazon "white background" patent, and it is highly likely that the US Patent office has their own grow-op [it's out behind the meth shed].
  • 3 1
 Never had a problem with my 2x. I agree that something like a dropper changes the way you ride way more than a 1x, I'll wait for my next bike for a 1x. I think the 1x didn't evolve because an overwhelming number of people want it, but it's a way to make chain stays shorter on bigger wheel bikes, by removing the front mech. Probably why the current generation of wagon wheelers handle less shitty than the previous version.
  • 3 2
 Pinkbike, sponsored by sram
  • 19 4
 The biggest game changer in the bike industry recently has been the 5.10 shoe, period.
  • 2 0
 My shins agree.
  • 2 0
 I use a 5:10 approach shoe and the grip is so sticky it might as well be cliped in. Every bike shoe should be so sticky.
  • 1 0
 @taleotell do you use the Tennie approach from 5.11? I love my impacts by I am looking at something a bit lighter and the Tennie looks about right for what I want.
  • 1 0
 Yeah I think it is the tennis. It has a canvas shell though. Some tennoes seem to have a leather shell.
  • 2 0
 So good to know. looking forward to picking up a pair.
  • 8 0
 "The burden of innovation, improvement and standardization was left to outliers like AMP Research, Formula Italy, RockShox, Dia-Compe USA and Mountain Cycles"

Would worth mentionning HOPE TECHNOLOGY, making their first mtb disc brake in 1989 and on the market in 1991...
  • 13 6
 I love the article Richard, the split between innovation and improvement is awesome, great observation. I would add a resize though, because just changing a dimension does not necessarily involve improvement... you know it is like being on a dinner and suddenly the host says: there is bad energy in the room! I don't know if someone broke wind, blokes laying asphalt outside or there is no hole in that wall: but something must be changed! How about you move 15mm to the left Harry? I know! - bars in that window must be thicker to let less light through, it is too bright and the thief may have it too easy to bend them - I may be too rigid but my legs flex when I think about it! 35mm will be perfect! One more thing... I am tired of adding sugar to my coffee with a spoon, I want an electronic sugar adder in the coffee machine, self adjusting to my mood swings!

However the first paragraph in mrXX is bollocks Big Grin 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.
  • 2 5
 Doesnt matter how dialed the chainguide was, N/W rings made it totally obsolete for trail and AM riding. Lighter, easier to set up, does the job just as well. Why would anyone want to ride a with a chainguide now for AM?
  • 4 0
 2x9 and a blackspire stinger, cheap easy fun...
  • 1 0
 2 x 10 on an wt triple with raceface light bash on my xc/trail bike. 26 & 40 T, god only knows why shimano didn't make this a stock option.
  • 5 0
 could not agree more Waki ! as soon as you aren't riding groomed trails, the chain comes off if you have no chainguide. Fact.
  • 3 0
 Yeap: my bash guard has saved both my frame and MRP Bling Ring many´o times so far. Its a keeper! 1 x 10 is a keeper too, mostly depending on price: ex. XO1 cassette will set me back x 4 the money of the 10 speed cassette I use now = work slightly less, ride more!
  • 6 0
 If we are going electric let's put 10 on the crank and one on the back. A servo can move chain rings, allowing only the one in use to stick out, thereby moving the weight to the bb and off the wheel and ending the rear derailleur's reign of terror.
  • 9 0
 You could say, there's been a major shift in the industry Wink
  • 8 11
 Yes, too bad they focus too often at setting the bar thicker than higher...
  • 2 0
 ..
  • 4 0
 ..f*ck I don't want to answer here... how does this work?
  • 13 10
 It's puns! you must insert a word connected to the subject but in a different meaning. It can't be obvious but should still be easy to grasp. But you are French, so you can just smoke a crooked Gauloises and say something in the lines of: "My name is Jean Pierre, I come from Paris and I want to have sex with your family" and we will still laugh.
  • 53 0
 No, I technically want to aswer another post but when I push "submit" it goes here. Computers are too complex for me, I only understand how a baguette works. And my name is not Jean-Pierre, can I have sex with your family anyway?
  • 4 0
 i want them to set the bar in front of me. with naked women pouring the drinks. that would be awesome! i have a lot of time to kill today.
  • 3 0
 I am not from france. My name is not Jean-Pierre. And even baguettes are too complex for me. Can I still have sex with your family?
  • 1 0
 Ugh... last week I made a joke using quote from South Park and as much stupid as this show is, I realised that it is 18 years old... so no one got it. Now I made a joke using quote from Eddie Izzard's Glorious... I am so OLD!!!
  • 5 0
 Ultimately xx1 constitutes improvement, not innovation. A single ring and wide range cassette are by definition incremental improvements on an existing system - far from the paradigm shifts described above. For that I would give the nod to the ahead-set, platform valve, and tubeless tire sealant.
  • 5 0
 its not even an improvement. I now have to change chain rings depending on where i ride or hike-a-bike where i used to pedal along easily.
  • 4 0
 This is the problem with 1x that is holding mr back. Sure you have enough gears for a decent amount of riding but if you don't keep extra chain rings with you, you are either dying on the climbs or not having the gears for the downhill. Idk how anyone can say they have enough gears riding a 1x11. Sure you can make it work but your bike will never be as capable as a 2x or 3x driveterran. For what? So it makes maybe slightly less noise or it so it looks better even though you should probably still run a chain guide to keep the chain on because I've dropped several chains trying out the whole 1x thing on a narrow wide chaining. I think 2x is the way to go. You have a chain ring for climbing and one for descending. That's all you need. That plus a chain guide if your an aggressive rider and you don't even need a clutch rear der. it's bullet proof with that setup.
  • 1 0
 @Vans4life14

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.
  • 1 0
 If you think 1X is holding you back, then you need to realize that you are holding you back. Ride more, get stronger. 2X setups have the same range as 1X11.
  • 5 1
 he didn't forget them, they are forgettable. he's talking about products that actually work now. internally geared hubs should be on every product managers radar. and they are-shimano, sachs, sturmey-archer- are all offering IG hubs. problem is, they don't work, yet. the 1st generation of suspension forks, disc brakes, suspension frames didn't work either. in the future, the IG hub might be the thing that kills 1X. maybe, if the weight comes down and the gear range goes up sufficiently. better wheels would result from losing the cassette-less dish/more evenly distributed weight distribution. i wonder if RC will ever use his takeover of (and zap's disappearance from) MBA, as a metaphor for something...kidding.
  • 6 0
 IG hubs = huge unsprung weight = F'd up suspension performance.

Ain't gonna happen. Gearboxes will be a much better solution for FS bikes.
  • 1 0
 agreed! i said that "if the weight comes down and the gear range goes up blah blah". also, the internal friction of IG hubs is a problem...still, the IG hub is more likely to become a product in widespread use than gear boxes, which have only seen use on downhill bikes. sturmey-archer, shimano and rohloff all have IG hubs in production. and people are putting them on commuter bikes and fat bikes. and a few manufacturers are speccing them as OE. gear box is less widespread...for now. who knows? who thought dropper posts would become game changers? i used to think they were meh, now i can't imagine riding without one.
  • 2 0
 Wow, seemingly random mention of Zap ... I can tell without looking at a profile who the older guys are around here.
  • 2 0
 I had a columbia 3 speed with an IG. It was from the 70’s. IG are not new. They just have limited use. Really they are more of a marker for how wide the gap is between MTB and other disciplines of biking are.
When the transmitio. Fits in the bb and doesn't make noise like a Hammerschmidt then gearbox has a fighting chance.
  • 3 0
 IGs would work fine on a hardtail fatbike or commuter. That's not the issue. The issue is that an IG hub will always weigh (considerably) more than a non-IG hub. Hub weight is unsprung weight. Putting a big chunk o' metal on the unsprung side of your rear suspension is going to have a negative impact on your suspension performance. Gearboxes are a more desirable configuration for FS bikes because the gearbox is on the sprung side of the bike; and also since your hub can be a single speed hub, you have even less unsprung weight.
  • 6 0
 You mean the folks from Schweinfurt, Germany, where SRAM's R&D is doing the great job.
  • 1 0
 SRAM bought Sachs a long time ago. Its an American company now (despite having German engineering, which probably explains why XX1 works and Red, not as much.
  • 5 2
 Great article and a good read but I have an issue with a few of the claims made in the article.


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?
  • 2 0
 not sure if shimano breaks are the best in all categories one would measure brakes in-modulation, power, adjustability, reliability. what i do know is this-they are quieter than anything else i've used. yesterday i heard someone about a 1/4 mile behind me riding on some other brake SQUEEEEEEL, SQUEEEEL! so glad it wasn't me.
  • 3 0
 the biggest problem that was never a problem is the perfect description!
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...
  • 2 0
 michibretz - I run two different N/W Chainrings since a year in very bumpy terrain, not a single chain drop. I dropped chain on front derailleur more times than I can remember, if even only onto granny ring and I have never ever managed to put it back on with one revolve of cranks. I did get my hands dirty as hell by trying to pull the dropped chain from between granny and BB or frame element. I did got the chain stuck between middle ring and parallelogram. I did hit my knee hard many times into the bars after trying to pedal at speed, but the chain just wasn't there - when clipped in. When on flat pedals I dd scratch my calves badly when trying to make a hard stomp on pedal after some section on a descent, and due to lack of resistance my foot just shot over the pedal. I did need to change several lower rollers on Stinger style chain guides, when they seized or they simply fell off during a ride. My chain did got stuck between upper guide and the chain ring more than once.

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?
  • 1 0
 WAKI,
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...
  • 1 0
 There is quite a major difference between those blokes and me. Between EWS tracks in Whistler and most other places in the world where people may use a front derailleur. Between their pace on fireroad rally and mine. A chasm bigger than my moms bum. However we here, who write sht on internet are quite similar.

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 Big Grin aha ah ah oh oh... oh... oh.. uh... yea... ehhh... you haven't tried riding with a narrow wide haven't you?
  • 1 0
 Waki, why are you always bringing your mother bum into play???? every time you try being a smart ass you do that! That's very weird behavior!

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.
  • 1 0
 @michibretz I run a RF N/W 30t on an FC-M970 crank with a Bionicon C-Guide v.2 paired with a conventional X9 rear derailleur on a 10-speed X0 cassette. Weight advantage over my 24-36-Bash and FD-M985e2 setup is 470 grams! I lost my chain 2 times and both times I was pedalling backwards while entering a really rowdie roots section. Mounted a 77designz freesolo upper guide and the whole system is stabel as a rock in the middle of a mountain. Weight penalty: 20grams...

Weight advantage: still 450 grams. Not significant?
  • 1 0
 I saved 380g on my move to 1 ring from 2 rings BUT the main reason for me to move was not the weight but lack of reliability of 2x setup with chain guide, despite trying all possible settings and positioning of the front mech. In fact I had a modified version of stinger that was even better at keeping the chain on as it had a plate up front like Dewlie. At the same itme my cousing claims that he has never dropped chain on 3x9 despite having no chain guide what so ever
  • 3 0
 Great article, but it hasn't looked too far into the future. SRAM already has a prototype wireless drivetrain for road bikes. I'd imagine that XX1 will have an electronic wireless option in less than 3 years. They're hiring for an electrical engineer right now: www.sram.com/company/jobs/electrical-engineer.

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.
  • 2 0
 Good points. I agree with the gearbox idea - Honda managed to do it 10 years ago on the dh bike Greg Minnar rode. At the time I thought 'this it it surely - a few years time we'll all be able to buy gearbox bikes' but it didn't happen unfortunately. Maybe Shimano had too much of a monopoly and didn't want to do it.
  • 2 0
 The Zerode uses Shimano's Alfine hub gear as a gear box, Sram make the G8 IGH, they are available, the big companies aren't holding them back. The reason more manufacturers don't use them for mountain bikes is that they are not right for mountain bikes.
  • 1 0
 Wow, the Zerode looks lovely. Must have missed that when it came out. I think gearboxes could be right for mtb's, just needs a bit more innovation.
  • 3 0
 The Honda transmission was a modified derailleur system inside a carbon box.
  • 2 0
 Why hasn't anyone mentioned the effect of the wide range 1x system on fool suspension frame design? eg. Enduro 29, Process 111, etc. For many fs 29ers, the lack of a front derailleur allows a shorter chainstay, which has long been the plague of many 29ers. I for one can't wait until the big S shortens up the stays on the Stumpy 29 EVO, by way of taco blade, 1x, or whatever. Engineers now have a little more wiggle room when it comes to engineering the rear end. And thanks to RF for my NW and OneUp for my 42T!
  • 2 0
 Just to get my piece of the nitpicking pie. Stainless steel is still a ferrous material. Like any steel, it is an alloy mostly composed of iron (ferrite). If you are going to use fancy metallurgy words, you might want to actually know what they mean.
  • 1 0
 Actually ......
Ferritic
Martensitic (including precipitation hardening steels)
Austenitic
Duplex steels, consisting of mixture of ferrite and austenite
  • 2 0
 RC: "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."

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.
  • 2 1
 Good article, my personal favorite upgrades have been

-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.
  • 1 0
 Great Write-up!

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.
  • 1 0
 Pre-disc brakes, I recall getting up to speed at Bromont in the early 1990's, applying brakes only to over-heat the rim and have the tire melt off the wire bead or tubes blow out spectacularly. Brake pads sometimes did not even last through the day. Lots of us had deep gouges in our shoe soles from jamming it into the tire behind the seat tube and above the bottom bracket to slow down enough to bail when our brakes failed. Hydraulic rim brakes were better, but the heat was still an issue for tires. Wheels did not even last as rim braking surface was ground thin by grit, high temperature and high loads. You'd be trueing a wheel only to have it fail on your jig! Even when disc brakes sucked they were such an improvement over rim nonsense.
  • 2 1
 I'm surprised RC didn't mention the pretty much long forgotten Hammerschmidt 2x internally geared crank that SRAM put out in about 2009, this was essentially a 1x system with a weight penalty and still the gearing range. I have that system and it still works great today with little to no maintenance. I have switched to the new 1x systems but i sure miss the bail out gear of the old system.
  • 1 0
 That's because the Hammerschidt was a piece of Scheiße. way too heavy to spinning that thing between your legs. How many derailleurs did it replace? I was almost sold on it, then I adjusted my front derailleur and got a dual ring chainguide from E-Thirteen. Check out this review from just after the turn of the century on it www.bikeradar.com/us/gear/category/components/chainsets/product/review-truvativ-hammerschmidt-am-chainset-35140

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.
  • 2 0
 The Hammerschmidt is a great example of innovation and improvement being two different things.
  • 1 0
 the only downside is weight. all the rest are positives. what are u saying?
  • 2 0
 Sorry, but the Hammerschmidt was not the first dual-speed crankset - Schlumpf brought out one some years prior. It is a beautiful piece of Swiss engineering.
  • 1 0
 Funny in the era of free ride I used one chain ring up front. I have been doing this for about ten years. Now I have a 30 pound Enduro with two rings up front. Im climbing and liking it! XX1 is bloody expensive! Other than price I see no need for the extra weight and complexity from a front shifter and derailleur. Thanks for the great article RC .
  • 1 0
 Great article!! Electronic shifter systems certainly have come a long way from the half charged electronic Mavic systems from the nineties and just like every other innovation brought to the MTB world, there are people out there ready to poo poo it. I for one cant wait, even though I am willing to hold off until all of the bugs are out and till I see someone MacGyver ( actually a Webster's word ) something that is less expensive and exclusive. I'm also glad that the 26" wheel and tire are being phased out for other options ( it shows that we are evolving as human beings ). frame sizes and suspension technology will only be able to improve, ready to boldly shred where no one has shredded before, till its posted on Strava then EVERYONE knows about your favorite riding spot.....

Thank you disc brakes
Thank you suspension systems
thank you aerospace for bringing it all together !!!!
  • 1 0
 @hampstead - beautiful man! That disc brake makes my eyes bleed! And I love the 500mm KORE stem!!!! Proud to still be using one, though it's modernized and (only) 50mm like many others these days. Good reminder of where we came from, time to b*tch less about my bike and ride more..........
  • 1 0
 There's more than simplification forma the end user in the massive adoption of 1X transmissions by most manufacturers. They also have other incentives, such as a simplified chain line (which helps dialing pivot locations in FS bikes), shorter chainstays to mitigate the stupid extra inch from the 650b wheels, and one less thing to allign.

Regarding the electronic shifting bits, SRAM has already debuted the CX1 Cyclocross grupo, with a servo-operated RD and N/W chainrings.
  • 1 0
 Love the article, I'm running a hope 30t narrow wide and 11- 36 10 speed cassete with hope t-Rex 40t expander sprocket, geared to a zee clutch mech and all I can say is wow. I'm a shimano drivetrain guy but love my codes. Point is that the only limitations are now my legs and lungs, what more could you want?
  • 1 0
 Richard touches on some good points.
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.
  • 2 2
 Hey Richard sorry had to edit this- after reading through a second time I am editing this post. Most of it was solid. However a few parts are iffy at best and something typical of what I have come to expect from you....this time was definitely more subtle.
  • 3 0
 This guy is not invited back to dinner. Never stopped talking about bike parts.
  • 3 3
 Innovation? really? 1X is about as innovative as riding on the rims without tires.
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...
  • 1 0
 i would like to trumpet the invention of tubeless sealed tires as a sea change in mtb....its really amazing to me to find people who show up at races still using tubes and getting flats
  • 1 0
 So why not just put a Derailleur in a box and see how long it will last with no maintenance?

www.pinkbike.com/video/343829
But gearing manufactures would make less money, so they will not let it happen?
  • 1 0
 Made less ugly by nuseti:
nuseti.com
  • 1 0
 Yes but it is not a Derailleur in a box it a gear box?
  • 2 0
 I was very suprised that further into this article, there wasn't anything about 26" vs. 27.5" vs. 29".
  • 3 0
 Very Creative intro to the story Good article
  • 1 0
 And thats the whole fucked up thing about this world and the bike industry, its just about making money, not making good bikes.
  • 1 1
 I don't think those two things need to be mutually exclusive.
  • 1 0
 Food, shelter, clothing - we all need to make money.
  • 1 0
 Love this post, but it is missing a HUGE one. Suspension I think is right up there with disk brakes in how it changed how and what we ride.
  • 1 0
 Having recently been told by a SRAM tech rep that riders are wearing out their 1X chainrings in as little as 250 miles, I could hardly call the 1 x 11 system perfected.
  • 1 0
 As RC say, the door is open for new guys to appear. Hope the Box Components system is available soon: www.bikemag.com/gear/box-components-launches-mtb-parts
  • 2 0
 yep... v-brakes sucked!!!
  • 1 0
 Have you tried cantilevers?
  • 2 0
 yes!! :s the bigger difference was the braking power from the v-brakes... but mud, and untrued wheels was a nightmare!!
  • 1 0
 Am I the only one to notice that in RCs portrait in the banner he is running a front shifter?
  • 1 0
 why has no one put the rear derailleur on the fame? it might be lighter than a gearbox. honda did it too.
  • 1 0
 BUT WHAT DID THEY DO ABOUT INNOVATION WHO HAS NO CHAIR?!?!?!
  • 2 1
 Hey Richard. You totally forgot the hub gears... again.
  • 2 1
 And gearboxes like effigear, or pinion.
  • 7 0
 Ah but you see the problem with all of the above is that they are all so forgettable.
  • 1 0
 Yep! You Do forget to service them and they still run like new!
  • 1 0
 or we all do more squats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who's up for it????????
  • 2 1
 Wireless shifting gear boxes are the future.....
  • 1 0
 Excellent article Richard. Thanks for the insight and the heads up!
  • 1 0
 DI2 CVT gear box
  • 5 0
 There is such a thing, the Nuvinci IGH is available with an automatic electric shifter to keep your candence constant. It weighs about as much as your house and costs more than a night with the Olsen twins.
  • 2 0
 Thats still a hub gear, yes it could be bodged into a frame similar to a Zerode but i'm after something more refined than that. I've seen better CVT designs, like one which used two opposing cylindrical cones which to me seem much lighter than a box full of sprockets and chains like those within the current Effigear or Pinion. I don't like how the Pinion bolts to the frame, when i see that i see a creeky press fit BB. In theory the electronic shifting in a CVT design could be totally customised by the end user, number of shifts, size of steps etc etc and without twin gear cables or grip shifts. Gearbox's are so overdue its a joke
  • 2 0
 Wow, that's expensive!.....do you have any idea what it costs to fill a hot tub with penicillan?? Smile Smile

" It weighs about as much as your house and costs more than a night with the Olsen twins."
  • 2 0
 @Ride-More I agree gearboxes are way overdue- unfortunately they represent the potential that they would not need to be replaced as often as the current geared/mech setup. Its likely if one of the big S firms did provide a gearbox they would fill the gearbox with nylon gears to wear down faster. I am completely looking forward to a gearbox bike like the Pinion.
  • 2 0
 And thats the whole fucked up thing about this world and the bike industry, its just about making money, not making good bikes.
  • 2 0
 Keep on beating that horse guys. Bike companies need to make good bikes in order to survive, they also need to make profits. By the way gearboxes are rad, but in many ways they are a very complicated solution to a non-problem.
  • 2 5
 As long as downhill gets harder and does not ever go near 29er wheel size Ill die happy.
  • 1 0
 I don't know about that. A month ago, I would agree. But a new Yeti ARC 29er HT build has reinforced my belief that the 27.5 thing is absolutley a waste of time. 26ers are still fine. But the 29er is really fun. The geo allows you to sit IN and not ON the bike and the traction is crazy good. Wheels are not nearly as strong or stiff , but with the right build, my next AM bike will be a Yeti 29er.
  • 1 0
 I will admit, some the manufacturers are coming with some pretty sick 29ers. We'll see how the sport evolves. Downhill alone has been described as the fastest evolving sport so..... maybe the adaption to bigger wheels might come. The Yeti with the right suspension should see you plenty of smiles Razz







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.114644
Mobile Version of Website