|Any bets on Campy 11?||Kaboom|
Nov 4, 2003 3:09 PM
|Now that both Campy and Shimano have 10 speed grouppos, how long do you think its gonna take campy to pick up the glove and answer with a 11-speed?
Do you actually think this is possible? wont they get to a point where they cant add any more cogs? i mean there is a physical limit to the number of gears you can fit... After a while chains will be so thin and cogs so weak the thing will have pathetic reliability.
|don't think it will happen||ColnagoFE|
Nov 4, 2003 3:13 PM
|There really isn't much more of an advantage going to 11 and I think Campy will look for other innovations to sell their product. Look at all the CF they use for Record. I expect to see that trickle down to Chorus and lower groups in the near future. I think we are nearing the end of possible improvements with chain drive systems anyway. What more can you do? Campy has been making waves to go electronic which seems a natural progression if they can solve the problems that earlier systems (Mektronic) had.|
|Agree, not sure what innovations are left||DaveG|
Nov 4, 2003 3:27 PM
|We seem to be in a cycle where Shimano and Campy think they have to drive new innovations into their product lines every year. (I guess we are to blame because we keep "upgrading" to this stuff). I'm not sure there is a whole lot more that can be done. The electronic shifting is one, but in terms of numbers of cogs, heavily ramped and tuned cogs, lightness, etc it would seem there is not much more room for improvement. The carbon stuff seems like window dressing to me (no real improvement). I'd be perfectly happy if things just settled out for a while. I find it ironic that Campy users (myself included) tout the durability of Campy gear, yet the true threat to our gear is not breaking or wearing out, its obsolescence.|
|Lots of room for innovaton||Scot_Gore|
Nov 4, 2003 3:45 PM
|Continuously Variable Transmission comes to mind. No cogs, no chain, no click shifting but rather some kind of dial or button(s) to change ratios to the desired degree.
Anybody else got other ideas for where the drive train might be going.
|Founder of Gore Tex??||Spiderman|
Nov 4, 2003 4:20 PM
|just a reference to your handle - scott gore i believe is the president of Gore tex.
Anyway, i would like to see lighter internal hubs.
Also, someone once suggested using carbon fiber or a composite material instead of stainless steel for cables. In reality it isn't that expensive to produce. It would be considerably lighter and probably more durable.
There also a number of directions carbon fiber can take and once it becomes cheap and easy enough to manufacture (not that it is all that hard now) there will be more specific carbon fiber for the tubes of the bike. It will also allow for good, light everyday carbon clincher rims.
If they did want to go with a crazy cluster in the back they would have to go the way of the mtn bike with a 135 spacing in the rear.
Frame manufacturers should look more closely into the role of each individual tube in the frame (sort of gestaltist way of building a bike). All the high end/custom manufacturers do this (Serotta seven waterford strong Dave Kirk IF etc...) with great results. If cannondale stopped beefing up their DT and rear triangles, they would see that the top tube and seat tube affect the ride as well, and have important roles.
|Serotta seven waterford strong Dave Kirk IF etc...||divve|
Nov 4, 2003 4:36 PM
|...aren't those old men bikes?|
|Serotta seven waterford strong Dave Kirk IF etc...||lyleseven|
Nov 4, 2003 4:42 PM
|No, but they are the best bikes built, and that is why he mentioned them, I'm sure.....|
|That was pretty deep. You must be wise....||divve|
Nov 4, 2003 5:16 PM
|...and old! :)|
|I am wise...||lyleseven|
Nov 4, 2003 7:15 PM
|Go ride your Huffy, you exude envy of well made bikes...|
|The Pres of GoreTex is Bob Gore...||Scot_Gore|
Nov 4, 2003 4:47 PM
|...and we're not related. I have distant cousins whohas got the family pretty well researched and I've never heard of a connection to the Gore-tex Gores. I have a common ancestor with the Al Gore, but I had to get to the 1700's to find it, so you and I may be as closely related.
If we're expanding the discussion to frame materials. I'd say we'll see Bucky tubed frames before they put me in the box and throw the dirt on top.
|innovation or just change||DaveG|
Nov 4, 2003 4:47 PM
|at the risk of sounding like Grant Peterson, are they improving the bike or just making changes because they generate sales? Certain changes have made significant improvements to function or safety (clipless pedals, indexing, integrated brake/shifter), others offer no difference to my cycling enjoyment. The bike is still a basically simple machine - that's part of the beauty of it. I wonder why the machine has now become more important than the ride.|
|You say tomato and I say tomato....lets call the whole thing off : )||Scot_Gore|
Nov 4, 2003 5:03 PM
|Some folks might say nothing been innovated for a few centuries.
Nuclear Power Plant = Steam Engine
or if you take it a few more years back
Nuclear Power Plant = Steam Engine = Teapot = Boiling Water
Boiling Water was innovative the rest were just changing an already existing concept.
But in essense, I competely agree. My company introduced new, innovative, guiding principles to lead the company to new heights of success. I made no friends when I compared these "new" ideas to the preamble of the constitution and the magna carta.
|I'm waiting for this too||superdog|
Nov 4, 2003 5:21 PM
|The continuously variable transmission with some sort of "cog" that will change effective size. It would probably use belts instead of a chain. If there was some way to have only one rear cog that changes sizes, you could eliminate the front and rear derail's and reduce the dish of the rear wheel. I've thought a lot about this over the last ten years.
I read somewhere where a mountain bike was using a kevlar "wire" as a drivetrain that would spin inside of a housing. This gave the mtb drive to the front and back wheels simultaneously.
Nov 5, 2003 6:28 AM
|I've seen a couple of abortive attempts to develop bike CVT's. I think you'd have to stay with a chain because of the inherent losses in belts.
The first I saw replaced the front ring with a set of 5 smaller pinions (like idlers on a der.) which were on springs so that the harder you pedaled the smaller the effective size of the front 'ring'. It must have been horrible (spongy, uneven) to ride, but the idea is neat.
The second was an internally geared hub where the gears changed automatically based on the speed of the wheel (via governor weights sticking radially out of the hub. However, all this does is remove the shifter (and the control) from the handlebars.
|What about belt driven, internal gears?||Spiderman|
Nov 5, 2003 6:50 AM
|I saw Jericho cycle's belt driven single speed at interbike 2001 and it was awesome and SILENT! Very innovative. He had a "link" of sorts in the seatstay to open up and remove the belt through.|
|I drive a stick||ManBehindTheCurtain|
Nov 5, 2003 7:23 AM
This is a little off the point of this thread but not very far off. Isn't continuously variable transmission for your bike the same as automatic transmission for your car?
I drive a stick. I prefer to have the ability to make the choice of gear myself dependent upon my perception of driving conditions. I choose not to cede this choice to a machine. I suspect I would feel the same about CVT for my bike. I want to decide when to go to the small ring. I do not want the bike to be making that decision for me.
I agree that there is plenty of room for innovation. I just do not think that CVT would be a step forward.
|CVT is not the same as automatice transmission||Scot_Gore|
Nov 5, 2003 7:49 AM
|On your bike today, your bike determines the ratio you use at any one time. You can't pick any gear ratio you want because your using fixed sized cogs.
If your in a 53/17 cog combo that's around 84 inchs
If your in a 53/19 cog combo that's around 75 inchs
What if you wanted to select (not have selected for you BTW) a 78 inch ratio because that's what optimizes your power output for the conditions (i.e. wind, slope, whatever). You couldn't do it today, your machine limits the choices you make and I think that's what you like about your current transmission, lots of choices that you get to make. CVT would give you more flexiblity, not less and not limit you ability to make that choice for yourself.
What do you think now ?
|Mostly I think . . .||ManBehindTheCurtain|
Nov 5, 2003 10:44 AM
Mostly I think I understand a little better what you are proposing. So instead of indexed shifting, you want friction, or some sort of dial system, and furthermore, instead of rear cogs you want some sort of friction variability of selection there too.
Well, it doesn't sound to me like it would be a very simple machine. Your average bicycle weight weenie is going to be hard to convince. But I guess I agree with what I understand to be your basic premise, that at moments when genius and the spirit of innovation cross that seemingly insoluble problems can sometimes have simple solutions.
So I concede that CVT is a good thing to wish for. Even for someone who drives a stick.
By the way, as for your example of how to get that 78 inch ratio? My Campagnolo 10 speed casette is a 13-26. 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26. So I already have a choice between 53-17 and 53-19. And you are right, that's what I like about my current transmission, lots of choices.
Nov 5, 2003 7:17 AM
|Do you mean inherant power loss when using a belt because of it's need to be fairly flexible i.e strechy. I was thinking you could use a belt material that had almost no give (like a chain) and use a tension device similiar to the one we use today.
It's the transmision mechanism that changes ratios that I have a hard time imagining a way it would work.
I'm no engineer or material scientist (where's hummah) these are just my amatuer musings.
I enjoy this kind of speculative dialog.
Nov 5, 2003 7:16 PM
|Belts have inherent losses in them, while chains can theoretically have perfect power transmission (only small frictional losses as the plates slide against each other)
Belts are made of some type of elastomeric material and as the belt bends around the gear/pully it compresses and uncompresses. Because the material is not a perfect spring energy is lost as this happens.
|don't think it will happen||mackgoo|
Nov 5, 2003 7:24 AM
|The electric was in the Tour this year.|
Nov 12, 2003 7:56 PM
|as a possibly interesting sidenote, I work (as a coop) for goodyear, in development, in power transmission products. One day I was looking around in the storage room and I found a bike that an Eagle PD belt drive. Turns out, my boss put the drives on a couple bikes as a project when he was a coop.
Now, I work in the industrial belt group, and I can't say much about how efficient a PD belt is, but they are probably more efficient than you might think. (more efficient than, say, a V-Belt.). They are efficient enough to be used on motorcycles instead of chains (harley davidson, etc.)
About the bikes, I rode one once. It was grandma style cruiser bike, and the tires were almost flat. but yeah. It was definately smoother than a chain drive. - With a chain you press on the pedal and there is a bit of 'play' where the pedals move but the chain is not tight and not driving the sprockets, and then it engages, but with the belt that did not happen.
I wouldn't expect to see a belt replacing a chain b/c you can't 'change gears' with a belt like you can a chain. - a gearbox would be needed. (or a variable speed belt, but then that is less efficient.)
Another thing is the sprockets, eagle sprokets are traditionally solid, = heavy and a lot of inertial mass... for a bike, of course, you could make lighter ones... but i wonder how expensive they would be. Ok I'll stop