Quantcast

At last some common sense in bike components!

JCL

JCL

Monkey
Aug 31, 2008
696
0
I agree.

Even if it means going back to 135x12mm rear DH hubs I'll still support it. I don't mind a change in standards if we get a real world performance benefit. Unlike 142mm hubs on XC/AM bikes.
 
norbar

norbar

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause
Jun 7, 2007
11,369
1,605
Warsaw :/
One thing comes to my mind looking at the idea of smaller rear and front cogs is the chain. Long link mtb chains feel a bit off on 9T driver hubs. Even the one made for mtb bikes. I like the idea of a smaller front ring as it will mean less bash grinding but its not that important. What I really want is a 6 speed casette with proper gear spacing that will not eat up my hope hub.
 
ncrider

ncrider

Turbo Monkey
Aug 15, 2004
1,564
0
Los Angeles
I don't understand why people act like running less cogs or smaller than 36t rings is a new idea. It's been around forever guys. Take out the cogs you don't want and replace them with spacers.
 
captainspauldin

captainspauldin

intrigued by a pole
May 14, 2007
1,263
177
Jersey Shore
ncrider said:
I don't understand why people act like running less cogs or smaller than 36t rings is a new idea. It's been around forever guys. Take out the cogs you don't want and replace them with spacers.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point, 9T cogs on a MTB cassette is a new thing(forget about that shimano recumbent groupset can't remember the name that had it, that doesn't count).. With a 9T cog, you can run a smaller(30T) front chain-ring and still have very similar gearing as a bigger(36T) front chain-ring and a bigger cog (11T).
 
Last edited:
D

dw

Wiffle Ball ninja
Sep 10, 2001
2,943
0
MV
I think its great, people have been talking about doing this forever, its nice to see someone actually step up and do it. Too often in the past it was a "we have to wait for Shimano to do it" situation. Sure there will be more wear on the cassette teeth, and the pulsing issue, but all in all I think it's a reasonable tradeoff.

Dave
 
S

slowitdown

Monkey
Mar 30, 2009
553
0
Hope "singlespeed" and Hadley "singlespeed" hubs can carry several cogs, up to 5 or 6 in 9- or 10-speed spacing.

Oh. Wait. You guys are talking about smaller diameter, not fewer cogs? Micro-drive?
 
D

dropmachine

Turbo Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
2,922
10
Your face.
Slowitdown is bang on. If you think having a full 9 speed cassette is really your problem, go that route.

This just seems like something built to placate riders who still blame insignificant equipment details for speed issues. That 9 tooth cog will let you run what, a 34 front? I doubt that the clearance gained going from a 36 to a 34 will keep the BB off the ground on a bike made too low. There clearly are some benefits, but I'd think that they are so small and insignificant that they wouldn't really make much difference at all.
 
norbar

norbar

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause
Jun 7, 2007
11,369
1,605
Warsaw :/
dropmachine.com said:
Slowitdown is bang on. If you think having a full 9 speed cassette is really your problem, go that route.

This just seems like something built to placate riders who still blame insignificant equipment details for speed issues. That 9 tooth cog will let you run what, a 34 front? I doubt that the clearance gained going from a 36 to a 34 will keep the BB off the ground on a bike made too low. There clearly are some benefits, but I'd think that they are so small and insignificant that they wouldn't really make much difference at all.
Click to expand...
Nope. 11 to 9 gets you from 36 to 30T. Thats a big differance. I have only 2 problems for now - most guides were designed for 32-36T and most dh frames were designed around a bigger chainring.

As for the SS hub idea - if they made them in 150mm Id get one.
 
frorider

frorider

Monkey
Jul 21, 2004
971
20
cali
Who failed math in HS? Going from 11t to 9t on rear cog means you could drop 20% on the chainring. Ie go from 38t to 30t, approx.
 
D

dw

Wiffle Ball ninja
Sep 10, 2001
2,943
0
MV
dropmachine.com said:
Slowitdown is bang on. If you think having a full 9 speed cassette is really your problem, go that route.

This just seems like something built to placate riders who still blame insignificant equipment details for speed issues. That 9 tooth cog will let you run what, a 34 front? I doubt that the clearance gained going from a 36 to a 34 will keep the BB off the ground on a bike made too low. There clearly are some benefits, but I'd think that they are so small and insignificant that they wouldn't really make much difference at all.
Click to expand...
Why do you have a car? Anyone who has a car instead of a horse is just blaming their insignificant equipment details for speed issues.

Lets face it, people like new stuff.
 
D

dropmachine

Turbo Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
2,922
10
Your face.
I missed the drop from 34-30, sorry.

I still say its the law of diminishing returns in action. And people definitely do like new stuff.

I remember somebody commenting on the pendulum effect in different industries where products go too far in one direction, then loop back, then settle soemwhere in the middle. I wonder if this is one of those products.

Also, why the need for a completely new hub? Why not use the 9 tooth solution that Ritchie used years ago for XC? Actually askin....
 
S

slowitdown

Monkey
Mar 30, 2009
553
0
dw said:
Why do you have a car? Anyone who has a car instead of a horse is just blaming their insignificant equipment details for speed issues.

Lets face it, people like new stuff.
Click to expand...
Sure they do.

People also like to kill each other in order to get the resources to make "new stuff."

At some point encouraging the lust for "new stuff" has negative consequences, especially in a world where resources are finite and the population is always increasing.

A good MTB part designer/maker would key into this fact. Maybe find a way to recycle parts that aren't as hip or blingy as they were 15 minutes ago. Maybe find a way to stop encouraging Buy And Throw Away culture.

A less... uh... moral one would keep boosting wasted resources (impulse buying with the affiliated discarding of usable items).

I suppose I should just never mind on this line of questioning. After all, for some, there's money and a career in Shiny New Objects.:confused:

/rant
 
-BB-

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
So here is a quick calc I did on what a 9x36 rear with 28 front (the green numbers) would be compared to a standard 32/22 front and 11-24 rear (yellow numbers).

These calculations are saying, for every time the cranks spin once, how many revolutions does the rear spin...

So it looks to me like the standard setup ranges from .64 to 2.9 while having a 9t - 36t spread in back gives you gearing that goes from .77 to 3.11.

I don't really care how many gears you have inbetween bc for me it is either going straight up or straight down. All I care about are the two extremes.

SO, what I guess I'm saying is that I would love to see a 9x36 spread in back!!
 

Attachments

S

Slater

Monkey
Oct 10, 2007
378
0
Don't forget that this would increase all of the antisquats! 100% tacticality would be lost.
 
SCARY

SCARY

Not long enough
Apr 6, 2003
1,287
4
I need more of these green square things^^
slowitdown said:
Sure they do.

People also like to kill each other in order to get the resources to make "new stuff."

At some point encouraging the lust for "new stuff" has negative consequences, especially in a world where resources are finite and the population is always increasing.

A good MTB part designer/maker would key into this fact. Maybe find a way to recycle parts that aren't as hip or blingy as they were 15 minutes ago. Maybe find a way to stop encouraging Buy And Throw Away culture.

A less... uh... moral one would keep boosting wasted resources (impulse buying with the affiliated discarding of usable items).

I suppose I should just never mind on this line of questioning. After all, for some, there's money and a career in Shiny New Objects.:confused:

/rant
Click to expand...
As posted from an IBM mainframe,circa 1981.

Really?,you're on a Dh Mtb forum.A completely useless activity in the grand scheme of things,anyway.Its a young sport based in technical advancements .This is probably the wrong place to start an uprising based on Eco-drivel.
Don't you have a G8 summit protest to get to?......remember ,don't usenany fossil fuel to get there(includes hitchhiking)or throw malitov cocktails...it increases global warming.//my rant..give my best to George Soros
 
squiby

squiby

Chimp
Jul 26, 2010
91
13
dropmachine.com said:
I missed the drop from 34-30, sorry.

I still say its the law of diminishing returns in action. And people definitely do like new stuff.

I remember somebody commenting on the pendulum effect in different industries where products go too far in one direction, then loop back, then settle soemwhere in the middle. I wonder if this is one of those products.

Also, why the need for a completely new hub? Why not use the 9 tooth solution that Ritchie used years ago for XC? Actually askin....
Click to expand...
Some answers here>> http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Ten-Speed-and-the-Nine-Tooth-Cassette-Cog.html

I like the idea of going single front on my trail bike with a 9/36 spread....and I LOVE frivolous new stuff!!
 
D

dropmachine

Turbo Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
2,922
10
Your face.
Ian Collins said:
please elaborate? i scoured the PB review and didn't see anything about pulsing....not being a jackass, i'm curious, as i think this is a sick setup...
Click to expand...

I wonder if it has to do with bikes being based around a certain size chainring at the moment, and the smaller chainring will cause the bike to pedal funny? Just a guess.

Also, I thought 32 was the smallest chainring size you could use with a 104 bolt pattern? Don't tell me there'd have to be a new chainring pattern too....
 
Jeremy R

Jeremy R

<b>x</b>
Nov 15, 2001
9,698
1,053
behind you with a snap pop
squiby said:
I like the idea of going single front on my trail bike with a 9/36 spread....and I LOVE frivolous new stuff!!
Click to expand...
Same here man.
I see the benefits in DH of getting to run a smaller front ring/guide which is cool, but I would really be stoked on getting 9/36 spread on my trailbike.
I have been running 1x9 for years, and I run a 32t with an 11-34 cassette.
That 9/36 would give you a ton of options.
 
Ian Collins

Ian Collins

Turbo Monkey
Oct 4, 2001
1,428
0
Pacific Beach, San Diego, CA
dropmachine.com said:
I wonder if it has to do with bikes being based around a certain size chainring at the moment, and the smaller chainring will cause the bike to pedal funny? Just a guess.

Also, I thought 32 was the smallest chainring size you could use with a 104 bolt pattern? Don't tell me there'd have to be a new chainring pattern too....
Click to expand...
my guess is that you'll be in the 9T gear, and at speed, maybe there is some pulsing because of the extremely limited chain wrap....minimal contact between chain and cog......also, you'll be at the highest speeds while you're in that 9T gear....beats the hell out of me
 
demo 9

demo 9

Turbo Monkey
Jan 31, 2007
5,910
46
north jersey
^ not sure what he meant by the pulsing, but something i notice when i am working on my bike in the stand, is that in 1-3 gears the chain is just moving 4-7 it starts jiggling a little bit, by the time im in 9th, its shaking 1 inch up and down. coudlnt tell you how/if this matters on the trail, but i did find it interesting.

I dont hate the idea, but i think it will screw up our 150mm standard. Besides, is it really that necessary, i have a 2011 demo 8, i have a 40T ring on it, i ride where the flat to rocky ratio is twice what you would normally find, i have no issues, besides even when your bash hits (and you should at least have a taco) thats not nearly as often or as bad as pedals. I ride 40T on all my bikes, and i dont have a problem, i have a problem with the pedals which with 165s and crampons on a demo 8, yield you 2 inches of ground clearance when they are down.

I think this is trying to fix an imaginary problem, when is the last time you fell because you hit your chainring on the ground, not your pedals. It makes more sense for 120mm crank lengths, the only person i can see this being good for, is bighitr so he can ride over the logs and not have to buy a longer shock.
 
D

dw

Wiffle Ball ninja
Sep 10, 2001
2,943
0
MV
Ian Collins said:
please elaborate? i scoured the PB review and didn't see anything about pulsing....not being a jackass, i'm curious, as i think this is a sick setup...
Click to expand...
OK, so in geometry, think of a triangle, then a square, then a pentagon, then a hexagon. The more sides you add, the closer the polygon becomes to representing a circle. A chain is made up of straight segments, no chainring is compltely "round".

Because of this, chain / driven chainring systems all inherently have some amount of RPM variation at the driven chainring output shaft for a constant velocity at the chain.

So in laymans terms, if you pedal a constant RPM, your chain will speed up and slow down as it passes over the teeth. This same phenomena is repeated in the output. In larger sizes it becomes imperceptible, but as you move smaller on sprocket size, the effect is magnified. Ever notice how pedaling in the big front ring on an XC bike feels "smoother"? That's why.

Dave
 
D

dw

Wiffle Ball ninja
Sep 10, 2001
2,943
0
MV
Slater said:
Don't forget that this would increase all of the antisquats! 100% tacticality would be lost.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure, interesting post for a guy who seems to have spent a lot of time forming opinions on technical matters. (just based on a quick glance at your past postings) What's your agenda?
 
W

wood booger

Monkey
Jul 16, 2008
668
72
the land of cheap beer
dropmachine.com said:
I wonder if it has to do with bikes being based around a certain size chainring at the moment, and the smaller chainring will cause the bike to pedal funny? Just a guess.

Also, I thought 32 was the smallest chainring size you could use with a 104 bolt pattern? Don't tell me there'd have to be a new chainring pattern too....
Click to expand...
Not a new pattern, just a new ring(s). It bolts onto the inner 104 position, but the ring itself is threaded and the threaded studs are offset from the ring. If that makes sense....

I'm surprised the BMX crowd hasn't chimed in about this more, but a 9 tooth cog runs like crap. Talk about crunchy crunch crunch! Good thing it doesn't get used very often.

Stoked on a narrower rear end though. Keep the heels off the frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom