DancingWithMyself profile

I've never really done a deep dive on gearboxes.  But based on the little I know, people don't want gearboxes.  They want derailleurs in a box that are sprung weight.  Or put another way, what they want is so fundamentally different from what a gearbox actually is that they shouldn't refer to is a gearbox.  

In reality, I think they like the idea of a gearbox, but not actual gearboxes.  "You see, what I want is a singlespeed, but one that get easier to pedal when I'm going uphill and harder to pedal when I'm going downhill."  

Regardless, an honest, decently technical look at gearboxes would be an interesting read.

Yep.  My interest got piqued by the comment about potentially spacing the cassette and use existing X01 mechanical derailleurs.  But then I realized there wasn't a 10-50 option, which is kind amazing considering how many of these "transmissions" are going to end up on ebikes.

I get the "universal" part and fewer sku's as well as the trojan horse angle for Transmission.  But I've always felt like NSB and WheelsMfg solved the stiffer-and-more-precise problem years ago, and all the UDH has done is take away flip chips.  Am I missing something?

Thanks for the correction on the cartridge.  Have never paid that much attention because you can just order it directly from them.

With full awareness that I'm talking to the wrong audience, I have an EXe I really enjoy (but about which I am definitely somewhat conflicted).  But somehow I cannot come to terms with electronic shifting.   

With the EXe, I can tell myself, especially as I get older, that the motor allows me to do X, Y, and Z that I couldn't do otherwise.  Conversely, electronic shifting seems almost like conspicuous consumption.  Hard for me to articulate, but it's somehow easier for me to come to terms with a sensibly-powered, very bike-like ebike.  Unlike my legs and cardiovascular system, my thumbs are aging pretty darn well.

I'd almost put electronic shifting in the same category as battery-powered wine openers.  When future civilizations study the downfall of our civilization, I'm convinced an agreed upon inflection point will be when we got too lazy to open alcoholic beverages without the assistance of motors and batteries.  

(BTW, in such future civilization, there still won't be gear boxes that are worth a sh!t.)

I for one an super excited about Transmission.  I have an X01 derailleur from 2020 that is getting a little clapped out and an X01 cassette that is about to finally wear out (mainly the shifting ramps).  Just picked up replacements for great prices.  Cassette was 30% off.

And it's a total first-world, super-enthusiast problem, but I've got three bikes and don't think I'd want Transmission on just one.  

For example, I've got oneup posts on two bikes and a revive on the third.  The longer drop I can get with the oneup posts has me spoiled, and I'm thinking about replacing the revive.  I could fit a longer revive on that bike. 

But I'm not sure I want another revive, even though it's a far superior post.  The oneups feel fine on their own, but not very good in comparison to the revive.  Thinking I'd rather remove the comparison by going with another oneup and let my brain recalibrate.  Plus I could buy a spare wintech cartridge and keep a single service kit / spare parts stash.

In the same vein, my mechanical X01 setups feel great.  Not sure I'd want to put Transmission on one bike and thereby make the other two feel like they don't shift well.

More generally, I'm not delusional enough to think anyone else cares about how fast I am (query whether Transmission would really make a difference there anyway), so it's all down to my experience.  And consistency across bikes helps me focus on the experience and not individual components.

Would be interested to hear exactly how they polished the cranks since it went well.

I think there are some wear issues and maybe some suspension kinematic issues with a really small, “micro-drive”chainring.  This sounds like and Andrew Major question as far as an authoritative answer.

Speaking of going back in time, you think people with a moto background or who currently mix a lot moto in with biking gravitate towards mid foot?  Seems like that would be the case?

And this was another phenomenal article.  Creativity always produces better and more useful articles than the latest widget.  Please keep them coming!

Awesome!  Thank you!

I think my conclusion is that if you postulate something like a 1 minute downhill run, ball over axle is best based on common sense and the reasons you state.  

But then you get into a very gray and individualized issue of whether the increased endurance and lower strain of the mid-foot position outweighs the biomechanical disadvantages for longer runs, full days, multiple days in a row, etc.

I may be mistaken, but I think Chromag says the Daggas work best with something like the Impact. Scarabs and Freerider Pros on my trail bike and Daggas and Impacts on my big bike and very happy and have not experienced premature wear.  

And definitely closer to ball of foot over spindle.  Feels much more athletic and dynamic to me when descending.  Clearly a lot of very good riders are arch over axle, but it's always seemed weird to me.  Can you imagine a shortstop, linebacker, etc. standing flat footed?  

While this piece is excellent, would be fascinated to hear a discussion by someone with with formal education and professional experience in physiology, sports performance, etc.

The general discussion on stems and bars has been great.  I gotta remember to check in on this forum more often.

Think bar shape, flex, and setup is one of the most underappreciated areas of the bike.  Wish the industry would put resources into a wide array of bars with different shapes and stiffness instead of some of the things they're focused on right now, like making everything electronic . . . 

I've read Lee's book and other articles and thought about this a lot, but I always end up having to maximize other variables.  I'm just over 6'1 (186cm) and always end up right in between a L and XL.  I go with L for my trail bikes that almost always get ridden on nearby purpose-build "sustainable grade" trails and XL for big bikes that get taken to bigger mountains.  I start with wheelbase, RC vs. FC, and HTA.  Then I do some math to make sure I can get the effective reach and stack I want and can position the saddle somewhere that will give me an acceptable seated position.

I end up running riser bars on both (35mm OneUps) - on the L to preserve reach and on both to compensate for short stacks.  Then more than a few degrees of roll back eats up a bunch of reach and costs me a bunch of stack.  So the ESL or SHO is what it is.  However, I find I can adjust to it just like adjust to different wheelbases, HTAs, etc. when moving between bikes.

I guess my point is that the lack of a L/XL or more sizes (or reach adjust headsets) creates challenges beyond merely effective reach and stack.  Always jealous of people that sit right in the sweet spot of a bike size and. as practical matter, don't have a lot of these sorts of decisions made for them.

Very much agree that you can run a higher bar on a bike with a longer RC and a FC that's on the more "conservative" side (maybe 495-500 for XL) - e.g., a Banshee.  People are catching onto this.  Think you can even see it a little in the new Nomad.

With all the good prebuilt wheels available, going custom generally makes sense only if you are going to spend some legitimate coin on both the hub and rim.  Or, if you just like building your own wheels, which I totally respect.

Could you please clarify for me whether hellions are stiffer than freerider pros (as opposed to regular freeriders). Very hellion curious.  Thanks!