Don't read into it so far.. Jeff is my friend and I was just having a little fun with him. He knew that I think..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.
/rant
At last some common sense in bike components!
It's not just a cog wear issue. The chain doesn't run smoothly on a cog with a radius that short, so you're losing efficiency. I think an 11t runs poorly.Its a conspiracy by manufacturers to make you buy new parts and then replacements more often!
The chain sees considerably more tension with a 20% smaller cog, so it will wear out super fast as well. BMX chains are burly as hell and they break regularly with the microdrive setups. This is asking for chain failure.
I'm going to side with Angrypants. This is poorly conceived. It'll surely sell more stuff, but the gains are negligible.
Lol @ the retrogrouch tag. I'm running a carbon belt drive, stealth hub, and a hydro gyro on my gravity bike. Smaller chainrings are hardly a tech breakthrough. If something makes sense I'm behind it. This is pointless standard splintering.
I am all for smaller more compact drive trains, think they are great and the smaller we can make things in that area the better. w00dy's points about the 9t BMX setups are entirely true w/ feel & wear...I am assuming some ppl in here don't know much about BMX (it is an mtb forum) but those setups do break chains...
I am torn because I love the idea, but not sure how it can be implemented effectively...I think it's an intermediary until we have a widely used gear box.
I am torn because I love the idea, but not sure how it can be implemented effectively...I think it's an intermediary until we have a widely used gear box.
don't make me bring up your old brake levers, you are a retrogrouch in a sense but I have always known you to ride what works...not because it's old.
Meanwhile at the evil genius hideaway of a top mountain bike industry manufacturer.....
"and then, after everyone buys in and starts breaking chains, we will make a minilink chain from unobtainium that is more efficient, lighter and stronger. Every internet mtn biker will have to have one!.... and we can sell them for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!"
The funny thing is that what would actually happen. If that drivetrain goes to sale expect a dedicatet special super dooper chain in 1-2 years.Meanwhile at the evil genius hideaway of a top mountain bike industry manufacturer.....
"and then, after everyone buys in and starts breaking chains, we will make a minilink chain from unobtainium that is more efficient, lighter and stronger. Every internet mtn biker will have to have one!.... and we can sell them for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!"
Haha no agenda. Doesn't everyone who nerds out on technical stuff form an opinion? I have no more than you, just different.
My comment was "half in jest, whole in ernest".
I think the "pulsing" that a 9t sprocket offers though would be a much more perceptible feature than the increas in Anti-Squat in most cases. Its kind of like riding a bike with an idler. The smaller the idler, the more you feel each link as it makes contact with the idler. Make it too small and it ends up feeling like crap.
yeah if thise takes off i would expect some sort of tight spacing halflink...we would need to have it...
I dont see that the 9t sprocket would really cause that much more wear for dh, i know that i rarely need to push the heaviest gear while riding or racing. If i do its just for short stretches so i dont think it will make that much of a diffrence on how often i will need to change my chain or casette. I maybe change chain and casette once a year or year and a half and move the replaced ones down to my dj or am and grind on them for a good time longer.
I LOVE YOU DAVE WEAGLE.
Speaking of squats, useless "advances" in the mountain bike industry make me want to take a watery chunky one.
Speaking of squats, useless "advances" in the mountain bike industry make me want to take a watery chunky one.
Totally agree. It's not like people are going to be climbing in the 9T!
People seem to be ignoring the aspects of this that make real sense IMO.
135mm hub with wider flange spacing than a 150mm hub.
Smaller/lighter chain guides and potentially more compact DH rear derailleurs with higher spring tension etc.
Better chainline and lighter cassettes etc.
I look forward to hearing what the naysayers say when the Sram/DT DH groupset is released. I think XC components and 9/10 speed cassettes, 36T chainrings will look clunky and dated rather quickly.
Hope, chris king, profile, american classic, and probably a few others already make single speed hubs which take 6 or 7 cogs. I have one of the profile ones and I love it. Strong wheel, lighter weight, better chainline, it's great. This is not news though. I'm only railing on the weaknesses of a narrow chain running over a tiny cog.
135mm is already a standard. 150mm came about from the stupidness of DH frames dunning XC gearing. 150mm will probably die off if this group happens. I don't know where that would leave 142mm? IMO that was a pointless standard.
Relegated to snow bikes and customs for those with wide set vaginas.
Good luck with tire clearance going back to a 135/73 setup. It can be done but it is extremely limiting from a chainstay design perspective.
What about it?
I don't see how a reduction in rear cassette dimensions can have anything but a positive effect on chainline?
Nah. All previous specialized demo bikes (cept the 9) showed otherwise. Shortest chainstay made and up until very recently, 135.
And the offset rear end was much more insigtful than people gave it credit for.
Yeah, I had a Demo 8. Like I said, it can be done...
dunno if this has been posted, but i like it - from pb interview w/ brandon sloane: "On my Enduro, I have a 1x10 setup with a 31-tooth up front and custom 9/36 cassette in the rear"
down with that.
down with that.
If things go back to 135 eventually because of this, then certainly it will be 135/83 anyway. The cassette is offset to the outside, so 83 should work fine.
Maybe a 78mm BB shell
I could be totally wrong, but I think you guys are seeing this wrong.
The bike is still a 83/150. Because of the little teeth on the outside, they had to use a 135 hub and then put that little piece on the outside of it.
I could be wrong, but every single bike that I have seen pictures of with this had a 150 rear end. So your DH bikes will still be 83/150. The hub just had to be narrower (a 135) to accommodate the smaller cogs.
The bike is still a 83/150. Because of the little teeth on the outside, they had to use a 135 hub and then put that little piece on the outside of it.
I could be wrong, but every single bike that I have seen pictures of with this had a 150 rear end. So your DH bikes will still be 83/150. The hub just had to be narrower (a 135) to accommodate the smaller cogs.
I love the idea of this on my trail bike. I agree that the 9t bmx set ups do have their problems, but like everything in life, there is a trade-off (and IMO, this one is worth a fast wearing chain). I think it's crazy that it's taken this long for mountain bikes to catch up, but interesting to see a bmx trend/innovation come to mtb instead of the other way around.
hope 6 spd dh cassette proto w/ 9t cog. nice:
love it or hate it, this will undoubtably be the hot setup for 2012...
love it or hate it, this will undoubtably be the hot setup for 2012...
i really like the idea with a 6 or 7 spd cassette but why not just build regular 11-23 cassettes and put the on the trials freehub bodies?
i have a hope pro 2 trials rearhub on my dj bike would love to see that thing in 150x12 and normal gearing... oh well )
i have a hope pro 2 trials rearhub on my dj bike would love to see that thing in 150x12 and normal gearing... oh well )
I am pretty sure you are wrong. There is a difference between axle spacing and the size of the hub shell.
"It measures out at 12 x 135mm because Sam, Brendan and Troy were looking for a slimmer back end compared to the full sized 150mm standard. Interestingly, the spoke flanges are actually wider than what you would find on a common 150mm hub, due to the shorter length of the freehub."
If it was still 150 it would not achieve the goal of a narrower rear end, so I'm pretty sure he means what he says - the axle spacing is 135.
But, the hub shell can be made wider than usual with 135 spacing. They are using 7 cogs, but still using the narrow cog spacing of 9 or 10 spd, so they can stretch the hub shell to cover the space that would have been taken up by 2 or 3 missing cogs.
I'll be honest. Totally glazed right over that quote. Thanks for pointing it out. But that quote does bring about an interesting point... When everyone was complaining that the demos had a 135 rear end, people were pointing out sam's and brendan's which had a 150 as the future direction. Sure enough the new '11 demo has a 150mm rear end. Why even go to a 150mm rear end if you are just going to go back to a 135 for a "slimmer profile"?
sounds kinda daft to me...
But that quote does bring about an interesting point... When everyone was complaining that the demos had a 135 rear end, people were pointing out sam's and brendan's which had a 150 as the future direction. Sure enough the new '11 demo has a 150mm rear end. Why even go to a 150mm rear end if you are just going to go back to a 135 for a "slimmer profile"?sounds kinda daft to me...
Does anybody actually hit their chainring on the ground?
The cutting edge doubles back on itself once in a while.I'll be honest. Totally glazed right over that quote. Thanks for pointing it out.
sounds kinda daft to me...
this5 150 is the current standard, why deviate from it, doesnt matter why it was made that way, and maybe one day we can go back to 135, but i think it should be a slower change, It seems like the hub companies want the manufacturers to switch yearly to boost sales.I'll be honest. Totally glazed right over that quote. Thanks for pointing it out.
sounds kinda daft to me...
Want to see my straitline bash that looks like I used in street for grinding? Does diablo have no places with high probability of bash hit?
Its certainly possible to hit it, but like always, better technique yeilds better results, 4X4 drivers go across gullys/logs crooked, same deal, wheelie over/into a log. My bash is nearly 3 years old, hardly any marks on it, and most of them were just cruising around the woods locally. I feel that its like improving the ground clearance of a jeep than putting a body kit on it. You may gain an inch (id think less) on the bash, but your pedals still hit and so does your derailleur.
I go through pedals alot, but my bashs are usually pretty clean. Maybe im just the next sam hill, but i feel that many people wheelie over logs, or unweight the bike. to gain those 3 inches of sag. Both of these are of course skipping the obvious bunny-hopping over it. (and i havent personally seen a log across a DH trail *especially at a resort* that 80% of the people couldnt hop over. I assume that 85% of the new (product) bikes are sold with the intention of riding at a resort. I doubt (product) is thinking about john smith who builds shady dh trails in his backyard.
This is different for XC riding.
I actually hit my bash much more than my pedals. I came to dh from xc so I know how to time my pedal strokes.
As for bash and technique this argument is silly. I've met trails where even with proper technique the chances of sliding on a rock/root with your bash were just too high. Not to mention we all make mistakes and it's then when we hit our rings.
Also more clearance gives us the possibility to choose more agressive lines in hairy sections. I doubt you can manual over a very long rockgarden.
So to me this would work, even with the pulsing, if you don't need to use the 9 cog for very long. Like doing short sprints on smoother sections, for example. I mean, how much do you really use your fastest gear? If you use it a lot, then maybe you should up your front chainring? But that last gear is def great for a race when your are really going ninth gear pinned and you wish you had one more.
yup I was missing the point. Got all rapped up in less total cogs that i didn't look at teeth count.