The next useful innovation
rockmonkeysc
Posts: 14,774
With all the pointless rubbish coming along to solve problems which don't exist I started wondering what could be the next major innovation to make a real difference.
For me the derailleur is the weak point in mountain bikes. If someone could make a realistic replacement that really would be good. No more smashed mech, sticky muddy mech or out of tune gears. The current gearbox designs just aren't quite good enough yet.
Anything else which would be more useful than those stupid anti slip grips to replace grips which don't slip or those hexagonal pattern pedals to ruin your knees.
For me the derailleur is the weak point in mountain bikes. If someone could make a realistic replacement that really would be good. No more smashed mech, sticky muddy mech or out of tune gears. The current gearbox designs just aren't quite good enough yet.
Anything else which would be more useful than those stupid anti slip grips to replace grips which don't slip or those hexagonal pattern pedals to ruin your knees.
Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=13070235
0
Comments
-
The latest Shimano side pull front derailleur is getting rave reviews, just a shame it's come when everyone is switching to 1x.
My proposal for a new rear derailleur would be a single jockey for shifting only, reducing the vertical height to keep it further from harms way and a separate tensioner behind the chainring, would probably require mods to the chainstay though, or an Orange five without one!Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
Hard one to redesign. Then only possible thing I can think off is a single speed gear on the rear wheel and the gear unit/box up at the front. Much like a motorbike gerarbox.0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19707845#p19707845]Clockworkmark31[/url] wrote:Hard one to redesign. Then only possible thing I can think off is a single speed gear on the rear wheel and the gear unit/box up at the front. Much like a motorbike gerarbox.
Like this?
https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://www.sram.com/truvativ/family/hammerschmidt&sa=U&ved=0CCYQFjAAahUKEwiW6Pbt-IjIAhXDrD4KHX9VBH8&sig2=5XqpdUGXOTqMKkSO0av3SQ&usg=AFQjCNFgz61ALK_m4XvrAtULQJ6ZcettswTransition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19707845#p19707845]Clockworkmark31[/url] wrote:Hard one to redesign. Then only possible thing I can think off is a single speed gear on the rear wheel and the gear unit/box up at the front. Much like a motorbike gerarbox.
Like this?
https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://www.sram.com/truvativ/family/hammerschmidt&sa=U&ved=0CCYQFjAAahUKEwiW6Pbt-IjIAhXDrD4KHX9VBH8&sig2=5XqpdUGXOTqMKkSO0av3SQ&usg=AFQjCNFgz61ALK_m4XvrAtULQJ6Zcettsw
Had to consult the parts catalogue to see how it works. But yes in principle. Added weight at the cranks and BB but lost weight at the rear, realistic y no weight gains or loss. But no rear mech no knock around. Possibility of no chain tensioner?
That was the only type of concept that sprung to mind.
Or this is way out there, some kind of LSD on the rear instead of a cassette and rear mech and it matches rear wheel traction to crank revolutions obviously with some kind of ratio. Eg, rear wheel is hard to rotate cranks are easy to rotate and vice versa.
This is a hard one.0 -
You would still need something to take up the chain stretch on full suspension frames. No reason why that needs to be at the rear end though. I quite like the Idea of belt drive as well.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350
-
You would still need something to take up the chain stretch on full suspension frames. No reason why that needs to be at the rear end though. I quite like the Idea of belt drive as well.
I was thinking belt drive at first, but then remembered my earlier experience of belt drive turn tables vs direct drive technics. But saying that I suppose belt drive has come along way with belts being reinforced with steel strands.
But you would need a way to tension a belt.
Unless, Between the pulley (front gear) and rear wheel the belt never changes tension and instead it is all done internally in the cranks to change the resistance depending on friction. Really is a hard thing to redesign I think and make it backwards compatible. Not impossible but difficult.0 -
Or a more elaborate/simpler way magnets and a pot as the gear selector. If I could liken it to a system, it would be like LG and Samsung washing machines. Direct drive motors. Single fixie on the rear. Cranks have the magnet and BB has the coils. Gear selector increases magnetism or decreases. Less friction, more quiet etc. But then it would be putting bikes in to the electronic side of things. But with minimum moving parts. That's all I have on this idea.0
-
Sturmey Archer.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
I think this shows how hard it would be, I have mentioned a few ideas that have a nod to the past that I didn't know about. In my mind we have the best solution unless we can drag an idea up and bring it kicking and screaming in to the modern age.
Also the rear mech is a sacrificial part. I like the idea of trying to improve on something, but I think this can't be improved on at the moment. It is too complicated.0 -
The current cassette and dérailleur system is so popular because it just works, the internals of a hub gear are similar in layout to a cars auto gearbox (traditional type not single or double clutch) using epicylics to change gears, but it is heavier and apart from at the hub would be harder to package, a CVT has appeal but the transmission efficiency is poor and it wouldn't cope with suspension.
Belt drive is nice with modern (kevlar reinforced) belt, but even in road commuting have proven to be no longer in life than a chain, and more expensive to replace.Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
Something like this? http://www.nicolai-usa.com/blog/helius-tb-from-nicolai-as-raw-as-it-getsBoardman HT Team - Hardtail
Rose Pro-SL 2000 - Roadie0 -
I remember one of my mates building a twin speed bike with one gear pedalling forwards and one pedaling backwards. Weird to ride.
Current gear set up would be difficult to improve on which is what it hasn't been done but it's certainly not impossible. It just needs Shimano to commit a design team for a few years.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
Electronics. A resistance motor in the BB area with a Transmitter hooked up to a motor in the hub with a Receiver which adjusts the motor output and rear wheel drive in relation to the resistance through the front. A bit out there and probably not really doable.Bird Aeris : Trek Remedy 9.9 29er : Trek Procaliber 9.8 SL0
-
Electronics. A resistance motor in the BB area with a Transmitter hooked up to a motor in the hub with a Receiver which adjusts the motor output and rear wheel drive in relation to the resistance through the front. A bit out there and probably not really doable.
Exactly as I said, and it is too far out there. Doable though. Can't think of any other way to improve what we have now.
Think the current system will be around for years to come.0 -
Don't know how you'd do it exactly, just thought about it as reading this thread, but how about moving the Mech above the wheel centre rather than below. Probably lots of reasons not to, just brainstorming.0
-
You'd have to pedal backwards.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
What about some kind of tyre air pressure sensor and / or on the fly adjustment system?
You get a puncture, loose a bit of air while the tyre seals but it automatically gets refilled from a co2 catridge.
Dunno exactly how it would work. Maybe some sort of rotating coupling in the hub axle and 2 hollow oversize spokes to keep the wheel balanced.0 -
What about some kind of tyre air pressure sensor and / or on the fly adjustment system?
You get a puncture, loose a bit of air while the tyre seals but it automatically gets refilled from a co2 catridge.
Dunno exactly how it would work. Maybe some sort of rotating coupling in the hub axle and 2 hollow oversize spokes to keep the wheel balanced.
Already been done. Seem to recall seeing a mountain bike with an air bottle on the downtube that allowed you to increase/decrease the pressure in the tyres 'on the fly' so you could alter to suit your terrain. Called Adaptrac, or something like that....
0 -
What about some kind of tyre air pressure sensor and / or on the fly adjustment system?
You get a puncture, loose a bit of air while the tyre seals but it automatically gets refilled from a co2 catridge.
Dunno exactly how it would work. Maybe some sort of rotating coupling in the hub axle and 2 hollow oversize spokes to keep the wheel balanced.
Already been done. Seem to recall seeing a mountain bike with an air bottle on the downtube that allowed you to increase/decrease the pressure in the tyres 'on the fly' so you could alter to suit your terrain. Called Adaptrac, or something like that....
Yeah, I can see that working 100% of the time with no issues... Not..
I'm guessing it never took off as a product?
bob6397Boardman HT Team - Hardtail
Rose Pro-SL 2000 - Roadie0 -
Not a component innovation but some kind of face protection other than a FF. Im truly miffed just how unconcerned everyone seems to be about smashing their face open and the complete lack of protection normal helmets offer. Im thinking along the lines of the old JT mouthtrap or, and the more i think about this the better it seems, a cricket helmet type grill which could attach to a normal helmet. Minimal weight, visibility or heat repercussions and if designed right could offer a high level of protection to mouth/teeth/nose without lugging a FF around...0
-
Not a component innovation but some kind of face protection other than a FF. Im truly miffed just how unconcerned everyone seems to be about smashing their face open and the complete lack of protection normal helmets offer. Im thinking along the lines of the old JT mouthtrap or, and the more i think about this the better it seems, a cricket helmet type grill which could attach to a normal helmet. Minimal weight, visibility or heat repercussions and if designed right could offer a high level of protection to mouth/teeth/nose without lugging a FF around...
Why bother? You can't protect from everything. The safest way to ride is to not ride and stay at home. I've been riding 20+ years and have had my share of offs, mostly without injury, a few minor scuffs and a broken arm. The risk is always there but I refuse to head out dressed like some kind of crash dummy covered in pads for this that and the other. Gloves, helmet and lightweight knee pads if its really sketchy is all thats needed. Never smashed my face, might do one day, not that fussed - I'll take the chance.0 -
Not a component innovation but some kind of face protection other than a FF. Im truly miffed just how unconcerned everyone seems to be about smashing their face open and the complete lack of protection normal helmets offer. Im thinking along the lines of the old JT mouthtrap or, and the more i think about this the better it seems, a cricket helmet type grill which could attach to a normal helmet. Minimal weight, visibility or heat repercussions and if designed right could offer a high level of protection to mouth/teeth/nose without lugging a FF around...
If you want face protection then it needs to be a full face to give the support to stop the chin bar smashing your teeth out when you face plant. Helmets like the original MET parachute gave no useful extra protection at all.
Most people learn to ride within the limits of their ability and maybe have a full face for the days when they want to go full banzai.
Personally I don't want a face guard of any sort when I'm out for an xc or enduro type ride. I know my limits and I know when to stay off the brakes to avoid going over the bars.
Most people would benefit more from a bit of skills training rather than extra protection. Better to prevent the crash than protect from it.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
-
Not a component innovation but some kind of face protection other than a FF. Im truly miffed just how unconcerned everyone seems to be about smashing their face open and the complete lack of protection normal helmets offer. Im thinking along the lines of the old JT mouthtrap or, and the more i think about this the better it seems, a cricket helmet type grill which could attach to a normal helmet. Minimal weight, visibility or heat repercussions and if designed right could offer a high level of protection to mouth/teeth/nose without lugging a FF around...
I have smashed my face open - I hit a tree 12 years ago, split my lid in two, knocked a tooth in, cut my face up a bit, had concussion. Bit of dental later and I have a dead, grey coloured tooth which might break someday biting into a baguette but of more concern and every day problem is the trauma caused to my hip resulting in a spot of arthritis.
The trauma risks associated with mountain biking are part of the sport - you cannot protect against everything and some protective devices simply deflect the problem to somewhere else - see wrist guards in snowboarding giving rise to more broken arms/shoulder injuries and full face lids causing neck injuries.
The innovation I'd like to see is a self adjusting rear mech - no matter what I do to mine it always manages to find one gear that it skips overgoing up the cassette and another it skips on the way down.Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
Id be much happier faceplanting a rock wearing this or something similar:
https://ayrtekcricket.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/129374_cricket-helmet_02_lat.jpg
Than without it. Big name brands have the R&D budget to get the design right, id guess it would be the point where the protector is fixed to the helmet which could fail but sufficient reinforcements shouldnt be a problem. Subject to rigourous testing (which id imagine is pretty standard), I think it would work...
Ive been thinking about the R2, so Paul it snapped at the point where the chinguard connects at the back of the helmet?0 -
Id be much happier faceplanting a rock wearing this or something similar:
https://ayrtekcricket.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/129374_cricket-helmet_02_lat.jpg
Than without it. Big name brands have the R&D budget to get the design right, id guess it would be the point where the protector is fixed to the helmet which could fail but sufficient reinforcements shouldnt be a problem. Subject to rigourous testing (which id imagine is pretty standard), I think it would work...
Ive been thinking about the R2, so Paul it snapped at the point where the chinguard connects at the back of the helmet?
That helmet will cause more injuries than it would protect from. There is no support to stop the face guard being pushed back, it's designed for an impact from a cricket ball which will have an awful lot less momentum than you landing on your face. That wire guard could tear your face to pieces, I would rather just mash my unprotected face in to the dirt.
If you want face protection it needs support to keep it away from your face which is why an alternative to a full face is not going to happen. I also don't think the market I'd there to develop anything. We have full face for downhill or helmets like the Bell Super 2R and MET parachute for enduro. Even most enduro riders are happy with a standard open face helmet and XC riders generally don't feel the need for face protection.
Looking at my old full face helmets, all used for downhill racing all the scratches are on the top and sides, I can't remember an accident where I landed face first and I fall off a lot!Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350 -
Ok, maybe not that exact helmet as such, but thats the type of protection i have in mind. Obviously the helmet it would attach to would have to have the support/design to absorb the impact without simply slipping up the head.
The risk of faceplanting and breaking teeth etc...seems a bit like the risk of flying: extremely remote chance of happening, but if it does, extremely high chance of being somewhat farked, and its a risk Im just not willing to take...
Anyway... :arrow:0 -
If you think it's a risk you don't want to take then buy a full face helmet. The market doesn't exist for manufacturers to spend money developing products. Development, approval and tooling costs will be in the millions so they need to be able to shift millions of units and that just won't happen.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350
-
Ive been thinking about the R2, so Paul it snapped at the point where the chinguard connects at the back of the helmet?
Where the chin guard meets the helmet on the sides, just above that point the helmet failed. I cant post his pics to here unfortunately.
He's having limited success discussing his accident with Bell.Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
Okay, I want to see more nano technology on bike components (frames moving parts and clothing).
Products from new already impregnated with the technology. Or in a spray tin for a DIY approach.
No idea what they are saying, but Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt demonstrating
You could even put microdot in to the mix.
Think the manufactures will whimper as you won't replace things as often. But then this could give buying power back to the buyer.0
