Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Downhill & Freeride' started by Squirrel, Aug 3, 2012.
Seems like an interesting concept. What are the your thoughts?
Please register to disable this ad.
Its already been done decades ago in a production bicycle. Radial gears do have the advantage of efficiency over gearboxes but on modern full suspension designs most are optimized around a specified sized chainring which is another important consideration - you would need to add a pulley for the specific ideal chainline to be on par with a gearbox in that respect. Also if the Yankee version was modernized it would be better for mountain biking as there is no second front ring for the chain to fall on in bumpy conditions - so is the only advantage to this version is that you don't have to use the non-traditional shifter design of the Yankee which only works in a limited shift zone of the crank stroke? I've ridden a Yankee years ago and it seems decent - certainly better than another quirky bike I tried with the auto-shifting at a certain RPM.
Anyhow, evolutionary product not revolutionary as claimed:
Cool link. This looks interesting. Wonder why it never caught on.
There were so many proprietary designs on that bike its no wonder the company failed. I don't know how they could do it - the bike was $369. I found an accessories catalog for the Yankee in a file cabinet which would put the purchase in 1991.
Edit: found this video with an additional women's TT version shown and here is a link to the main site of my first post - http://ustimes.com/Bicycle/
1980s Popular Science mentions
Yeah, 2 specific sized chainrings actually... a 36 & a 38
Yeah, 2 specific sized chainrings actually... a 36 & a 38
The OP youtube video at 3:45 he mentions development work on another segmented chainring design more comparable to the Husted 9 speed segmented chainring with the radial transmission with 10 or 11 speeds.
A single ring segmented gear transmission would keep the chainline more ideal (for the drivetrain, not suspension) than a dual if the 10-11 speed design they are working on also has the granny ring.
That guy in the video seems like a straight shooter.
this is bad on a DH bike, but actually really great on a trail bike (or all-marketing term, whatever works for you). Imagine being able to tune your anti-squat with a simple shift! It's easy, it's called a single pivot and the appropriate sized chainring.
I think this would be a great idea for an XC trail bike. Going faster, shift up, less AS as your chainring is now in line with the pivot. Going slow, shift down, and now you've got more AS to give more bite as you climb up something steep. I don't know that it could ever replace a rear derailleur, but a six speed rear cluster and ~8 speeds up front with this thing would give you a huge range and perfect cadence everywhere.
Wouldn't touch it on a DH bike though, just don't need the complication.
It would be more simple to have no rear derailleur/cassette (just a tensioner) and 9-11 speeds up front. Similar to a gearbox DH setup without a rear derailleur. I think its reasonable to assume the front ring could expand and contract enough to provide a spread comparable to a single ring and cassette.
Yeah, but you still have a rather large ring subjected to either bash forces or loads of dirt and super high torque. A gearbox, despite its complication, is nice because it's all isolated and often sealed.
I've had a similar idea to this for a long time, as I'm sure many armchair bike engineers and inventors have since the creation of geared bicycles. It doesn't actually involve an new tech, as others have shown. But I credit this guy for actually making a working prototype. Part of me wants to sign up to be a "vryoneer" and get a proto. But the proto looks pretty clunky and a bit heavy (as protos usually are). I'd like to see a more elegant solution.
My view on this is that if there were a good, workable solution using gear segments or expanding segments, it would be out there already. Really smart folks have been designing better bikes for a looong time. I suspect this idea has already been wrung through the wringer, so unless there is some kind of new idea or new tech that suddenly makes this idea worthwhile, then I think its days are numbered...
That said, I still will want to see the 10 speed version!
The industry and people in general are very resistant to huge shifts from the norm, read the article on Husted. Husted's transmission is the only example of radial gearing I've ever heard of. Certainly more promising than the planetary gear front ring system (Hammerschmidt) made popular by Sunbeam Bicycles (UK) in 1903! And I don't think radial transmissions would be more unreliable than the more complex modern rear derailleurs w/large thin cassettes and weaker chains:
I disagree that the industry is slow to change or adopt new tech. If there is something out there that is a genuine improvement, then that will sell bikes, and bike companies will jump on it. Problem is a lot of so called improvements aren't genuine, and require some kind of trade off (i.e. gearboxes).
That's true for evolutionary change and this technology emerged before the Internet Age which has greatly added propagation. The niche he was after was not a prime target for the cycling industry. Truly revolutionary technology often fails or fails on the first introduction/iteration.
Significant changes in technology (truly innovative/revolutionary products) or ideas always have significant obstacles, switching costs, and other barriers to adoption for a variety of reasons.
PDAs didn't see mass-market adoption until modern smartphones about 25 years later. In computers legacy x86 (Intel went RISC with the Pentium Pro/P6 and yet still has the inefficient baggage of compatibility after all these years) and DOS compatibility have held back technology. It has taken decades for the superior *nix kernel based solutions to gain mass adoption (and in a similar vein there may be better mobile OS like webOS, WP8, etc but superior technology alone isn't the key to adoption). Many revolutionary ideas in computers have been done before but it takes the marketing genius, like Apple, to yield industry adoption (UNIX-like mass market OS, mp3 players, smartphones, tablets, etc)
Changing from a fossil fuel-based (or even a car-based one in the US) society makes complete sense but infrastructure, politics, etc are huge hurdles.
Many industries these days purposely design and favor less than ideal solutions or product lifecycles - its not in their interests to make a solution that last forever or obsoletes the norm. You gotta milk your market for all the R&D investment for all you can.
Don't forget, the cycling industry is not a first-rate/efficient/professional industry either compared to IT, automotive, appliances, etc.
In the science the classic book on the negative pervasiveness of the norm: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
I'd just like to say, from one geek to another, I salute you.
Suntour BEAST - another production transmission more similar to the VYRO only it doesn't use a segmented chainring, it uses a hinged ring set -
Some more Beast photos.
I am Gregor, the inventor and first I would like to thank you for the thread.
I read it carefully and needed to register and state some points.
It is not a radial transmission system. Nothing is moved radially. The segmented chain rings are moved into the chain line. I do not believe in radial transmission becuase howerver it is solved it is not a round sprocket anymore and it will never be posiible to change gears under load.
It has actually nothing to do with the Browning system. The Browning system used the quater segment as a "bridge" to guide the chain from the current sprocket to the dailed one. It would have been impossible to guide the chain or use this system on an Mtb. because you cannot pedal backwards - which will happen at full suspension bikes because of the pedal backdraft??? Sorry! My English - i do not know the word therefore. And it took up to a full rotation unless the gear was changed.
My system had never ever been produced before and believe me I did a lot of investigations before I decided to invest my money into patents.
All other information about the weight, effiency and so on can be find on the website - www.vyro.com
But please feel free to ask me questions. I really appreciate it.
My father owned a Yankee with a radial transmission and I've ridden it numerous times. Actually the only way to expand the segmented chainring to a larger gear was to shift while pedaling - it provides the force necessary to expand the radial gear (the load is momentarily used for shifting). Downshifting required you to pedal backward in which case the drivetrain was not loaded and could be accomplished while stopped too. It does not use a conventional shifter but I am certain you could shift down/contract the radial gear under load with a revised design.
If you don't like segmented chainring designs than why are you using one?
Bump, because interesting.
Mtb News did a review on this thing, which I think is pretty rad:
I totally missed out on that one. Looks like a real good idea. Also the announcement of the combined front and rear shifter sounds good to me.
Obviously in times of 1x11 this product might stay a niche product, but in places like the alps where you have to deal with steep climbs this system might be a good idea.
Especially for desk jockeys like me.
more parts to break. sign me up...
Can have adjustment or different sections for people who want oval/biopace simulation maybe?
That's definitely where I need an 8lb chainring.
Not to mention that front ring(s) are big crud catchers and a PITA to maintain without a bunch of pivots, cams, and whatever...
The inventor/producer claims to have ridden 12.000 km without any issues or parts giving up.
It's actually not that bad. The engineer/inventor dude claims weights like this:
- crank with chainrings (or segments of) with aluminum axle - 496 g
- crank with chainrings (or segments of) with CrMo steel axle - 572 g
- shifting device at the bottom bracket - 62 g
-> cranks with shifting device starting at 558 g
All screws and bolts are made from titanium.
- optional bash - 65 g
- standard BSA bottom bracket - 86 g - yes, it has been seen in the wild
The plastic parts shall run for like 9000 shifts and come really cheap when it's time for a change.
I must admit that I quite like the idea itself. I'm just no so sure about stability and reliability.
So his cranks, with that chainring contraption on them are only 71 grams heavier than a pair of Next Sl w/28t Cinch chainring? Seems legit...
This thread reminds me...
Whatever happened to the hammerschmidt? Is that thing still a thing?
The cool kids were talking about it a few years ago and with all the 1Xsomething setups people are riding these days you'd think it would be pretty popular.
Not ISIS compatible?
ISIS killed it.
But I killed every ISIS that crossed my way