This is what's right with The Industry®
- Thread starter Jm_
- Start date
This seems like an engineering solution looking for a problem. The only advantage here would be saving 50 grams of housing (but that would be offset by whatever stopper mechanism and ferrules you might need).
My HD4 has internal derailleur cable routing not full length. By simply changing the plastic ports I can switch back and forth to full housing if I choose.
Um no.
It would eliminate the possibility for rattling and make an ordinary cable perform like a coated cable, and a coated cable work that much better.
Its called an improvement
plenty of brands do TITS style internal routing that prevents rattling entirely and uses internal cables. That's one thing the evil did very well...routing was totally painless, just jam it through until it comes out the other end. My BMC is a big empty toob, so I needed to wrap the housing in order to get it quiet. I'm still not sure it's as quiet as I would like.
Hows that work with a banjo fitting on a brake line?
Not sure if they still do it, but my friend's Trek Remedy had a cable housing stop where the internal routing went into the frame. The inner cable was exposed on the inside of the frame. He pays in beer for me to fix his shit so I ended up doing a bunch of work on that thing and routing a bare inner through a frame is a dickload harder than running an outer through one. In the end, one port got damaged and we ended up drilling the other and converting it to a regular internal routed full length outer. Negligble friction difference when you consider the housings and cables available these days.
It doesn’t, you cut it at the lever.
are we actually talking about the same things here?
thanks. I think it’s a neat idea actually depending on the execution.
Frankly I think some frames sacrifice low-friction cable routing just so the bike can look “clean” with internal routing and suboptimal bends in the housing.
Frankly I think some frames sacrifice low-friction cable routing just so the bike can look “clean” with internal routing and suboptimal bends in the housing.
Sounds like BMC belongs on the kill list. Not running tubes in tubes for internal cables is totally unacceptabu
I think a friend's friend's bike does that. He's 40 he has no job and lives with his mom. His housing is too short his bike shifts when his suspension moves
Well, dirt DOES get in there IME, the more holes and doors you have, the more gets in, not so much that it's bouncing around usually. I have to think though that this would totally violate the KISS/Occam's Razor concept, making the frame and cable much more complex than it needs to be. You aren't by chance using those shimano "000"-series shifters that require the crazy thumb-force to upshift? On the high end SRAM stuff I can't say that there's any excessive force and it's pretty light action all the way around...even with the 30 miles of outer housing. I can't say I've ever once thought since we went to full length housing "wow, we should go back on that because it's making my shifting too heavy". Hell, we are eliminating cables as we speak with electronic, so it's not going to be a problem for you for much longer?
There are plenty of reasons for BMC to be on the kill list. That being said, this is like a 5.5lb frame so I think their focus was on making it light rather than internet forum approved. I do hate internally routing brake lines (i'm swap happy), but I'll take derailleur cables.
I'm running AXS on the road bike and I expect that to take over MTB quickly ones it's released. No cables, easy tuning...
Right tripple tubes is simpler than a door with a cable holder and a straight shot... Sure sure....
Being picky Cable friction isnt just about shifting to larger gears its also about shifting to smaller gears quicker, when the cable has enough friction that shifting to a larger gear is noticably harder it is worn out junk and shifting to smaller gears takes a long time
Smart move! You gotta protect yourself from russians hacking your shifter when you're shredding the gnar.
I mean, I gotta be honest, I don't think I've ever once lifted my bike up and thought "boy this sure is light"
Light bikes exist pretty much exclusively for internet approval. There isn't much reason for them otherwise.
That said, no hate from me. If it rides well, it rides well.
I feel differently on any climbing day with over 5k vert...(but this is the dh/FR forum)
I think responsible weight saving is smart. Sacrificing durability and performance for weight gets dumb. Then again, i purpose built my bike. I simply do not ride as hard nor as fast as many of you, and instead I wanted an efficient mid travel bike (downcountry? ugh) that would be great for xc but could also get shreddy....not a shredder that can climb when forced. The bmc ticked a lot of boxes.
A well designed full housing routing is the best IMHO. You get the best of both worlds, without any of the associated hassle.
Air cooled internal cable routing?Didn't your BMC frame crack during our last ride?
I've never had problems with internal or external mounted cables. I do prefer to run full housings to keep the dirt out, don't care if that is internal or external. I do have problem with cable bosses that run a danger to your scrotum and taint if things go sideways.
Neither solve the problem of cable rub. Not as much of a problem for me anymore but when I rode in sandy soil a lot, cable rub could destroy a frame or fork in no time even with substantial added protection.
Neither solve the problem of cable rub. Not as much of a problem for me anymore but when I rode in sandy soil a lot, cable rub could destroy a frame or fork in no time even with substantial added protection.
If you don’t sacrifice durability or performance in your use case, then why would someone want a heavier bike?
I like light bikes because I can bunny hop a little higher, gap a little farther, whip better and I get way less tired meaning an extra lap or two with more fun per lap. Why are heavy bikes now cool?
Are there not reports of people not liking too light bikes as they feel they get knocked off course too easily / feel a bit frail or sketchy - or is more a matter of taking the extra time to acclimatize?
Not applicable to me, my Trailbike is 34lbs and my DH bike is 37, so no extra light whippets for this hack.
the solution is to reduce friction and unsprung mass not increase sprung mass.
Yeah, I wind up taping under cable housings when that sets up.
37lb is pretty light for a DH bike. Not crazy, sure, but you're telling me the difference between your two bikes is 3lbs???? I mean switching from a 36 to a 40 is like two pounds right there, plus dual ply tires, fat cranks, a strong frame, etc. I think my DH bike hovers in the low 40s, as I run full coil, dual ply tires, and aluminum bars/cranks like a good boy. The BMC is somewhere in the high 20s, but that's because it goes up far more than it goes down.
naw it cracked when I hit it with a wrench. Protip, don't hit your bike with a wrench.Didn't your BMC frame crack during our last ride?
It is not so much that the DH bike is light, but the trail bike is heavy. On the trailbike, going from 26 to 29, both aluminum Knolly's I gained over 4 lbs. Burly Onyx wheelset, a coil in the rear, Avy open bath in the fork and a huge ass 12 speed cassette don't come light. And I screwed up, so add a lb to the DH bike as I forgot it now has Maxxis DH rubber instead of Michi WR2's that it wore last time it was on the scales.
37lb is pretty light for a DH bike. Not crazy, sure, but you're telling me the difference between your two bikes is 3lbs???? I mean switching from a 36 to a 40 is like two pounds right there, plus dual ply tires, fat cranks, a strong frame, etc. I think my DH bike hovers in the low 40s, as I run full coil, dual ply tires, and aluminum bars/cranks like a good boy. The BMC is somewhere in the high 20s, but that's because it goes up far more than it goes down.