G-BOXX Planetary, first pics

bradflyn · Oct 28, 2008

MrPlow said:
I had a good look at the Diamond Back at Worlds last year in Fort Bill. Apparently if Diamond back USA even knew that Europe was making a proto gearbox bike they would have canned it. He said the Engineers in UK were keen and kept it quiet. Do you blame them for not sharing??
FWIW I still think they are way too heavy and with most DH riders wanting lighter, how is a heavier bike a progression?

The USA guys just license the name from the owners in the UK so I doubt usa has much say on what corperate does. The uk guys at the show told me they were working with all their license groups to get them on board. I am curious what other countries the DiamondBack group is working with now and how the bike is doing. I do not see much about it in forums.

the bike was fair and seemed bulit proof but of course I wish the bike was lighter too, but seeing the new Nicolai stuff it seems possible to improve as time goes on. I would like to see the designers in the uk work again with their usa engineer to try again.

monkeyfcuker · Oct 29, 2008

I've ridden the Sabbath a tiny bit around a field at a race recently, unfortunately wasn't allowed to ride it on track but I was impressed with the gearbox action! Very quick and unbelievably smooth, you could barely feel it change even when completely focussed on looking for it! Gear were maybe a bit to close ratio for my liking but without riding it properly who knows. One thing I know for a fact I wouldn't get on with was the gripshift!

The next bit is worthless but I'll say it anyway

Bike felt quite steep in my opinion but there was no where near enough sag for my skinny arse! You can definitely feel the weight of the gearbox in the middle of the bike when pottering about compared to my Sunday but again without riding it properly this is a worthless opinion LOL

For what its worth the Diamondback rider (ex motocross guy, can't remember his name Kurt something??) got fourth in his first DH race after picking up that particular bike the day before in morning practice with complete dry tyres on when most people were running spikes!!

CBJ · Oct 29, 2008

So many offerings in EU land and none here in the US - strange.

UncaJohn · Oct 31, 2008

Wilhelm.
Great project!
I would like to ask you some questions 'cause i can see that you've solved some of the "problems" i am facing too.
-How do you fit the speedhub between the two steel blades in your flame? (i can see that you're not using a torque plate, so i assume that you're using a cylindrical spacer between the speedhub & the frame)
-Do you use a TS or Quick release speedhub?
-What width Bottom Bracket shell do you use? (68, 73, 80 or 100mm?)
and...
-Which Q-factor size is suitable for your design? (width bedween the inside of your pedal arms)

Thank's
UncaJohn

UncaJohn · Nov 3, 2008

Thak's,
i'll do that right away.

UncaJohn

UncaJohn · Nov 3, 2008

Oooops,
that forum is in German only (and German are Greek to me!). It seems that i won't be able to signup into that forum...
Wilhelm,
can you "pass" my questions to Loui, or hand him my e-mail(info@prototype.gr?

Thank's again.
UncaJohn)

LMC · Nov 3, 2008

UncaJohn said:
Oooops,
that forum is in German only (and German are Greek to me!). It seems that i won't be able to signup into that forum...
Wilhelm,
can you "pass" my questions to Loui, or hand him my e-mail(info@prototype.gr?

Thank's again.
UncaJohn)

uncajohn, have you any plans to produce your frame design?

UncaJohn · Nov 3, 2008

No,
Just to move on & evolve my current design.... A gearbox placed concentrically into one on my design's pivots seems to work just fine.
-I have no "deadlines" etc
-I just do it for fun!

UncaJohn

LMC · Nov 3, 2008

sounds good,

cool vids on your site by the way, the climbing ability of your bike seems good

UncaJohn · Nov 4, 2008

Thanks,
At our area you have to climb a lot inorder to reach the "hairy" trails. So you do need a bike that can cope with all those rocks & roots and still be able to climb.
Descendig through those trails is fun (the trails you've seen at those old videos are easy & offer a nice warm up)

UncaJohn

fluider · Nov 4, 2008

Wilhelm said:
UncaJohn, no problem. If you won´t be able to signup, I will ask "Louis Cypher" in the German forum. If you indeed will be able to signup, feel free to ask your question in English!

Best regards
Wilhelm

Sorry for overtaking, I just tried to pass your questions Unca John and also added some of my questions I've had for Louis Cypher. Hope I formulated it in a clear way, certainly better than trying to ask in German

.

UncaJohn · Nov 5, 2008

Great!
Let us see (read) Louis responce....

UncaJohn

Louis Cypher · Dec 2, 2008

Sorry guys,

my first (longer than this) response got lost somehow and I have been running short if time in the last couples of weeks (notmuch better yet ;-( )

So here are some short answers:
>I would like to ask you some questions 'cause i can see that you've solved >some of the "problems" i am facing too.
>-How do you fit the speedhub between the two steel blades in your flame? >(i can see that you're not using a torque plate, so i assume that you're >using a cylindrical spacer between the speedhub & the frame)
The "blades" (of course no steel; much to heavy!) are distant 135mm like the back drop outs are. I got rid of the torque- blade because it a) saves me 3mms of space b) has no use anymore because I can connect the SH directly to the frame.

>-Do you use a TS or Quick release speedhub?
It's a standard Quick release speedhub. But thatz doesn't matter at all in my eyes

>-What width Bottom Bracket shell do you use? (68, 73, 80 or 100mm?)
>and...
standard 68mms. Wider would be better but this way I can use standard components which are much cheaper

>-Which Q-factor size is suitable for your design? (width bedween the inside >of your pedal arms)
I didn't measure the Q-factor but I still use my standard LX crankset I used on my Kona Roast before. So it's supposed to be " quite normal". Using a (much straighter) FSA crankset could reduce the Q- Factor further

I hope this is of any use for you guys.

Cheers Markus

fluider · Dec 2, 2008

Thanks for your answer Louis, this is very good news :happydance:

. One more question: Did you make thread on outside 6mm of QR axle, on each side, in order to screw the "blades" on the axle and in the mounting plates (do blades have both innner and outer threading?)? Or are they threaded on the outside only?

Louis Cypher · Dec 3, 2008

fluider said:
One more question: Did you make thread on outside 6mm of QR axle, on each side, in order to screw the "blades" on the axle and in the mounting plates (do blades have both innner and outer threading?)? Or are they threaded on the outside only?

Nope. I didn't change anything on the hub itself. I use the 5 Torx-Srews on the Braking Disc side to fix on the left and a nut with a M16x1 thread, a 10mm hole with a tight fit and some adnesive to lock it on the right hand side....

CBJ · Dec 13, 2008

That is a pretty sweat deal.

joelsman · Dec 13, 2008

nice looking bike. too bad the site is in german, I can't read much. only guess.

UncaJohn · Dec 17, 2008

Louis Cypher said:
Sorry guys,

my first (longer than this) response got lost somehow and I have been running short if time in the last couples of weeks (notmuch better yet ;-( )

So here are some short answers:
>I would like to ask you some questions 'cause i can see that you've solved >some of the "problems" i am facing too.
>-How do you fit the speedhub between the two steel blades in your flame? >(i can see that you're not using a torque plate, so i assume that you're >using a cylindrical spacer between the speedhub & the frame)
The "blades" (of course no steel; much to heavy!) are distant 135mm like the back drop outs are. I got rid of the torque- blade because it a) saves me 3mms of space b) has no use anymore because I can connect the SH directly to the frame.

>-Do you use a TS or Quick release speedhub?
It's a standard Quick release speedhub. But thatz doesn't matter at all in my eyes

>-What width Bottom Bracket shell do you use? (68, 73, 80 or 100mm?)
>and...
standard 68mms. Wider would be better but this way I can use standard components which are much cheaper

>-Which Q-factor size is suitable for your design? (width bedween the inside >of your pedal arms)
I didn't measure the Q-factor but I still use my standard LX crankset I used on my Kona Roast before. So it's supposed to be " quite normal". Using a (much straighter) FSA crankset could reduce the Q- Factor further

I hope this is of any use for you guys.

Cheers Markus

Thank you!
One more (okay 2!) question though...
-So getting rid of the infamous torque plate saved you 3mm & (i suppose) made it easyer to slip between the two frame blades the SH. I mean that the torque plate, of the QR vesrion, has a cylindrical part that extrudes in order to fit into the rear dropouts. The QR axle passes throught the SH and of cource the torque plate....
-Did you calculate the bevel of the SH lance in order to fit on it the Secondary gearing drivetrain disk?

Thank you again,

UncaJohn

EVRAC · Jan 23, 2009

Very positive write-up (after translating).

Also found a bunch of gboxx vids on youtube:

http://ca.youtube.com/user/nicolaiservice

TrueScotsman · Jan 30, 2009

Anyone have direct knowledge of how the g-boxx2 shifts under load (maybe Havefaith?)
Although that previous write-up was positive, I have heard that shifting under load was a potential problem with them. I would really like to know as I hope to buy a g-boxx2 in the very near future. (for my own gearbox bike project!)
Any info would be helpful,
Cheers.

SuspectDevice · Feb 11, 2009

I wish Kalle would hurry the hell up with the trigger!

Gboxx2 shifts well under load, if you can manage to get you hands on the twist shifter. All of my complaints about the function of the UT box are down to the stock shifter....

Sandwich · Feb 11, 2009

easily the best looking GB frame on the almost market...nice work.

dump · Feb 11, 2009

Very nice! The 19% VAT is crazy though!

no skid marks · Feb 11, 2009

Now we're talking, that Nicoai is hot. Hope they run with the lowest hole option, to get the most rearward axle action.

dump · Feb 11, 2009

if I had the $$$ & time, there's no question this is what I'd be riding.

EVRAC · Feb 11, 2009

Wouldn't it have been a lot cleaner and simpler to use a split pivot?

Sandwich · Feb 11, 2009

hahaha, guy, this is a nicolai we're talking about. "clean" and "simple" come after speedholes and extra linkages. The remainder of this bike is definitely one of his cleaner examples though.

no skid marks · Feb 11, 2009

EVRAC said:
Wouldn't it have been a lot cleaner and simpler to use a split pivot?

Split pivot would only(apparently)get rid of brake induced suspension lock out, it would not give it a rearward axle path and all it's benefits.

dhkid · Feb 11, 2009

^ yea it would, just depends on the location of the main pivot.

ohio · Feb 11, 2009

no skid marks said:
Split pivot would only(apparently)get rid of brake induced suspension lock out, it would not give it a rearward axle path and all it's benefits.

Correct on braking effects, but a horst link has a negligable effect on axle path. In this case both the horst and the single pivot will have initially rearward paths due to the placement of the main pivot. What the horst link DOES do is move the virtual pivot point up and back which will give it some more anti-squat (which it may or may not need....)

G-BOXX Planetary, first pics

Chimp

Monkey

year old fart

Chimp

Monkey

Chimp

Chimp

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

year old fart

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Pig my fish!

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Pig my fish!

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

The Fresno Kid