Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Non crosschaining cassette concept

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!
View Poll Results: Good Idea
Yes
5
27.78%
No
13
72.22%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

Non crosschaining cassette concept

Old 07-22-19, 05:25 PM
  #1  
Paulc
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Non crosschaining cassette concept



What do you guys think of this telescoping cassette concept I came up with?


It would eliminate cross chaining, and thereby:


1. Improve efficiency

2. Allow for more gears on the cassette then is possible with a derailleur

3. And theoretically offer smoother shifting


Is this worth pursuing or just too out there?


Thanks for checking this out

Paul
Paulc is offline  
Old 07-22-19, 05:37 PM
  #2  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,439
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1545 Post(s)
Liked 504 Times in 262 Posts
Originally Posted by Paulc View Post
What do you guys think of this telescoping cassette concept I came up with?
The Gradient derailleur from the 1890s, the first derailleur system known to have been commercialized, used a sliding gear cluster. The approach continued to be sparsely used for decades, but was basically dead by the middle of the last century.

It would eliminate cross chaining, and thereby:


1. Improve efficiency

2. Allow for more gears on the cassette then is possible with a derailleur

3. And theoretically offer smoother shifting


Is this worth pursuing or just too out there?


Thanks for checking this out

Paul
The problem is that it dramatically increases mechanical complexity.

A big part of why derailleurs are so popular is that considerations like chain angle turn out to not actually matter that much. Especially with modern laterally-flexy chains.
HTupolev is offline  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 07-22-19, 05:40 PM
  #3  
Darth Lefty 
Disco Infiltrator
 
Darth Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 11,064

Bikes: Schwinn Paramount, Salsa Timberjack, Diamondback Expert TG, Burley Samba

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2020 Post(s)
Liked 597 Times in 414 Posts
Thereís a patent for a sliding chain ring too
Darth Lefty is offline  
Old 07-22-19, 05:47 PM
  #4  
Paulc
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The problem is that it dramatically increases mechanical complexity.

A big part of why derailleurs are so popular is that considerations like chain angle turn out to not actually matter that much. Especially with modern laterally-flexy chains.
I understand your opinion.

But when you factor in that the rear derailleur is eliminated as well as the entire front shift gear, it comes out at least wash in parts count and weight, could be better in favor on the telescoping approach

Last edited by Paulc; 07-22-19 at 05:51 PM. Reason: added quote
Paulc is offline  
Old 07-22-19, 05:54 PM
  #5  
shelbyfv
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,172
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1810 Post(s)
Liked 1,182 Times in 672 Posts
Sell your idea to highest bidder! Shimano, Campy, SRAM. Retire and ride lots more
shelbyfv is offline  
Old 07-22-19, 06:32 PM
  #6  
Bandera 
~>~
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: TX Hill Country
Posts: 5,931
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1112 Post(s)
Liked 164 Times in 109 Posts
Call when the functional prototype has 10,000 flawless miles on it and all of your patents have been approved.
Otherwise: It's a combination of Hot Air and yet another answer to a question that no one asked.

-Bandera
__________________
'74 Raleigh Internat'l. '77 Trek TX900 FG. '90 Vitus 979. '10 Merckx EMX3. '13 Soma Stanyan
Bandera is offline  
Likes For Bandera:
Old 07-22-19, 06:52 PM
  #7  
Gresp15C
Senior Member
 
Gresp15C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,137
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 804 Post(s)
Liked 228 Times in 167 Posts
The idea requires much wider dropout spacing.
Gresp15C is offline  
Old 07-22-19, 06:54 PM
  #8  
Ogsarg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Hollister, CA (not the surf town)
Posts: 1,103

Bikes: 2019 Specialized Roubaix Comp Di2, 2009 Roubaix, early 90's Giant Iguana

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Liked 502 Times in 216 Posts
Originally Posted by Paulc View Post
I understand your opinion.

But when you factor in that the rear derailleur is eliminated as well as the entire front shift gear, it comes out at least wash in parts count and weight, could be better in favor on the telescoping approach
no rear derailleur? Don't quite see how that would work from the video. I see the smaller cogs fitting into the larger ones but you still need something to move the chain unless the chain is stationary and in that case, you need bits to keep the chain from moving and that would be more parts and plenty of friction.
Ogsarg is offline  
Old 07-22-19, 06:56 PM
  #9  
Troul
:D
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 2,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 194 Times in 142 Posts
I like to be a xchain rebel. Sometimes little little determines if the terrain is ridden on or walked on.
Troul is offline  
Old 07-22-19, 06:57 PM
  #10  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,439
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1545 Post(s)
Liked 504 Times in 262 Posts
Originally Posted by Ogsarg View Post
no rear derailleur? Don't quite see how that would work from the video. I see the smaller cogs fitting into the larger ones but you still need something to move the chain unless the chain is stationary and in that case, you need bits to keep the chain from moving and that would be more parts and plenty of friction.
The idea is that instead of shifting by moving the jockey wheel left and right, you shift by moving the cogs left and right.

Obviously this doesn't eliminate the rear derailleur, though. It makes it far more complex! You still need the pivoting cage to tension the chain and keep it flowing onto the cogs, and the simple parallelogram joint has been replaced by a complex sliding/telescoping mechanism within the cassette.
HTupolev is offline  
Old 07-22-19, 07:00 PM
  #11  
TiHabanero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,072
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1053 Post(s)
Liked 349 Times in 190 Posts
Good idea, and as already pointed out, one that has seen prime-time and drifted into history. Working out the details will be the key to success. There are a lot of new comers to the shifting market with hydraulic der. and knock-off shifters, but changing the way the whole thing operates is an interesting idea. If used with already available shifting mechs will be a bonus, because it will simply involve a hub design and not a shifter design. If all it takes is a couple of fixed jockey wheels and a hub with gear cluster, it could be a viable alternative. With that said, develop a working prototype and concept model, put a bunch of miles on it, accurately estimate tooling costs, and manufacturing costs, then sell it to one of the big 3.

No way would I take it to market myself.
TiHabanero is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 08:07 AM
  #12  
subgrade
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Rīga, Latvia
Posts: 729

Bikes: Focus Crater Lake

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked 247 Times in 148 Posts
The way I see it, the most problematic aspect with this concept is that the cogs would slide along where the actual torque transfer happens, which would make it quite tricky to make it work well and last long. It would most probably need some clutch mechanism of sorts, making it quite sophisticated and costly.
subgrade is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 10:44 AM
  #13  
Kapusta
Cyclochondriac
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,465
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1478 Post(s)
Liked 680 Times in 412 Posts
Originally Posted by Paulc View Post
https://youtu.be/aZaK-7sMiTQ


What do you guys think of this telescoping cassette concept I came up with?


It would eliminate cross chaining, and thereby:


1. Improve efficiency

2. Allow for more gears on the cassette then is possible with a derailleur

3. And theoretically offer smoother shifting


Is this worth pursuing or just too out there?


Thanks for checking this out

Paul
The complexity is going to be immense. The part about telescoping the cassette is only half of the equation. The other part is going to be adjusting the position of the upper jockey wheel as you change gears ( though this may become easier with electric shifting)

Also in the form shown, the cassette is going to take up just as much room on the hub as it does now. So I donít see how this is going to allow more gears.

And why would this lead to smoother shifting?
Kapusta is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 10:47 AM
  #14  
Kapusta
Cyclochondriac
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,465
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1478 Post(s)
Liked 680 Times in 412 Posts
I think what we are seeing here is all of the weight and complexity of an IGH, but without any of the benefits.

How is this an improvement over an IGH?

Last edited by Kapusta; 07-23-19 at 10:55 AM.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 10:49 AM
  #15  
livedarklions
I'm cross-chained
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 7,740

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4003 Post(s)
Liked 2,846 Times in 1,630 Posts
That seems a lot of engineering complexity to get rid of the very minor problem of cross chaining.

I think you would have to change the name of the non-cog part from derailleur to railleur, or maybe just rail.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:03 PM
  #16  
Paulc
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gresp15C View Post
The idea requires much wider dropout spacing.
It Requires 2 more sprocket widths over the total on the cassette
Paulc is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:05 PM
  #17  
Paulc
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kapusta View Post
I think what we are seeing here is all of the weight and complexity of an IGH, but without any of the benefits.

How is this an improvement over an IGH?
Gears can't match the efficiency of a roller chain
Paulc is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:23 PM
  #18  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,007

Bikes: Breezer Radar

Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1614 Post(s)
Liked 703 Times in 348 Posts
That video illustration is physically impossible with current or near future engineering.

If the small cassette is small enough to slide into the big cassette, there will be a massive jump between the biggest cog on the small cassette and the smallest cog on the big cassette.
tyrion is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:38 PM
  #19  
Paulc
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion View Post
That video illustration is physically impossible with current or near future engineering.

If the small cassette is small enough to slide into the big cassette, there will be a massive jump between the biggest cog on the small cassette and the smallest cog on the big cassette.
You are mistaken. The cassette shown has a typical mountain bike sprocket stack. There is not a larger jump when the chain transitions to the other cassette half
Paulc is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:47 PM
  #20  
Darth Lefty 
Disco Infiltrator
 
Darth Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 11,064

Bikes: Schwinn Paramount, Salsa Timberjack, Diamondback Expert TG, Burley Samba

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2020 Post(s)
Liked 597 Times in 414 Posts
I had an idea a while back for a 1x front ring that would somehow yaw to stay in line with each cog... like with maybe a CV joint. I could see how to control the yaw with a swashplate controlled by a second cable from the rear shifter, but was trying to figure out how to make it automatic. That's how I found and know about the patent for the sliding front chain ring.

This was before I had much time on a 1x system. Now that I do... it's fine, really. Not something that needs to be fixed. Especially if using a steel ring, like NX. The real problem with cross chaining has to do with rubbing on the FD, and ghost front shifting due to skate in small/small gears with short chain stays, and both are better on 11 than 10 speed because they moved the rings further apart and the chain is narrower.
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Darth Lefty is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:47 PM
  #21  
Paulc
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kapusta View Post
The complexity is going to be immense. The part about telescoping the cassette is only half of the equation. The other part is going to be adjusting the position of the upper jockey wheel as you change gears ( though this may become easier with electric shifting)

Also in the form shown, the cassette is going to take up just as much room on the hub as it does now. So I donít see how this is going to allow more gears.

And why would this lead to smoother shifting?
The jockey would swing on a lever arm. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

It allows for more gears because there is only so much of a cross chain angle possible before the chain will chatter at the exit point of the cassette sprocket of fall off the crank sprocket. Also removing the derailleur gains about an inch of side clearance

It could have smoother shifting because without cross chaining cogs could be ground down much more to create easy transition shift points
Paulc is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:47 PM
  #22  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,007

Bikes: Breezer Radar

Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1614 Post(s)
Liked 703 Times in 348 Posts
Originally Posted by Paulc View Post
You are mistaken. The cassette shown has a typical mountain bike sprocket stack. There is not a larger jump when the chain transitions to the other cassette half
Typical mountain bike cassette, let's say 11-42: 11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32-37-42.

Suppose the big cog on the small cassette is the 21t and the small cog on the big cassette is 24t. Look at a 21 tooth cog and look at a 24 tooth cog. Can the 21t cog even fit within the outline of the 24t cog?
tyrion is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:55 PM
  #23  
Paulc
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion View Post
Typical mountain bike cassette, let's say 11-42: 11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32-37-42.

Suppose the big cog on the small cassette is the 21t and the small cog on the big cassette is 24t. Look at a 21 tooth cog and look at a 24 tooth cog. Can the 21t cog even fit within the outline of the 24t cog?
Yes it can

The image attached is a 21t with internal clearance for an 18t
Paulc is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:58 PM
  #24  
Paulc
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion View Post
Typical mountain bike cassette, let's say 11-42: 11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32-37-42.

Suppose the big cog on the small cassette is the 21t and the small cog on the big cassette is 24t. Look at a 21 tooth cog and look at a 24 tooth cog. Can the 21t cog even fit within the outline of the 24t cog?
Paulc is offline  
Old 07-23-19, 05:59 PM
  #25  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,007

Bikes: Breezer Radar

Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1614 Post(s)
Liked 703 Times in 348 Posts
Originally Posted by Paulc View Post
Ok. I'm not an engineer but that seems like a very tough engineering problem.
tyrion is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.