Why no N x 1 instead of 1 x N?
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,076
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
i think the chain being fed from the top would not permit that to work.
i wonder if the FD had more rings, say as many as an RD and if the cage were just a bit wider than the chain then shifting from one ring to the other might be as smooth as the RD. im guessing that part of the reason why the RD shifts so much better and faster is that the number of teeth in adjacent cogs is only different by one or two, up front there is generally more than a 10 tooth difference between rings.
this is why i ask about crude, they both push the chain, the FD does it from the outside while the RD does it from the inside.
someone used the word guide but it is still being pushed.
i wonder if the FD had more rings, say as many as an RD and if the cage were just a bit wider than the chain then shifting from one ring to the other might be as smooth as the RD. im guessing that part of the reason why the RD shifts so much better and faster is that the number of teeth in adjacent cogs is only different by one or two, up front there is generally more than a 10 tooth difference between rings.
this is why i ask about crude, they both push the chain, the FD does it from the outside while the RD does it from the inside.
someone used the word guide but it is still being pushed.
Pushing from the outside is more crude than pushing from the inside.
edit: do the modern high end electric FDs change cage angle?
Last edited by tyrion; 07-18-23 at 04:31 PM.
#52
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,410
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6241 Post(s)
Liked 4,252 Times
in
2,385 Posts
The rear derailleur is lightning fast and efficient at changing ratios, especially modern ones. The front derailleur is still relatively slow and clunky in operation, especially going into a higher gear. Do you really want a stack of 11 or 12 front chainrings with a super-wide front mech? The less chainrings, the better in my book.
In the low normal world, SRAM made some really good fronts because the spring was stronger. Shimano went all “light action” on front and rear derailers but SRAM’s X9 front really “KACHUNKS!” when shifted and will knock the chain off under high torque situations far better than Shimano’s does.
It pretty much comes down to mechanics. It would be difficult to put a cluster of gears on the crank. The other issue is that when shifting the chain on the front derailleur, it is under tension whereas when shifting on the rear the chain is slack. The most we see on the front is three chainrings.
There are some bikes designed with internal gearboxes in the bottom bracket. Whether this qualifies as a n x 1 is up to you. The only one that I know of is Pinion. There might be others. Shimano has a patent on a system using chains, however, it is not available for sale. Neither is/was the Honda.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
it doesn't look like it does. it trims for each gear combination as appropriate, so there's never any contact, but doesn't look like it has the ability to rotate. this trim illustration seems to support that.
__________________
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,044
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1284 Post(s)
Liked 1,405 Times
in
714 Posts
The front is slow and clunky because it is operated wrong. The front derailer depends on a spring to knock the chain off to the lower gears under torque. Shimano’s Rapidrise suffered from the same problem. The spring just isn’t strong enough to knock the chain off under high torque situations and, thus, the derailer just clatters against that chain until torque decreases enough that the spring can knock off the chain. If front derailers worked the same way as rear deraiers…i.e. the cable drags the chain off the larger gears to the smaller ones…the shifts on the front would be as lightning fast and efficient as the rear. Suntour made a few of the high normal front derailers (as did Shimano) that worked really well back in the days before pins and ramps on the chainrings...
__________________
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 25,378
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8333 Post(s)
Liked 9,162 Times
in
4,521 Posts
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,313
Bikes: yes, i have one
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1147 Post(s)
Liked 1,187 Times
in
690 Posts
??? It's already wider than "just a bit wider than the chain". What else would you mean other than wider than it already is?
Now, you have a Q-factor problem.
You've provided nothing that would indicate having all those gears in front would "be better". It's more reasonable to expect it to be no different.
Part of the "crudeness" is because the front derailleur is doing work where the chain has tension and the rear is doing work where there isn't tension. Increasing the gears might reduce that (not sure how) but it won't eliminate it.
There are real engineers working on these products. Derailleurs have, quite clearly, stood the test of time. You (probably not an engineer) would have to make a much stronger case that drastic changes to them is a good idea. You are basically assuming that all those people haven't thought about this stuff.
If you don't think it's a good idea, why even suggest it? You haven't addressed the "shifting under load" problem (in any clear/convincing way).
Now, you have a Q-factor problem.
You've provided nothing that would indicate having all those gears in front would "be better". It's more reasonable to expect it to be no different.
Part of the "crudeness" is because the front derailleur is doing work where the chain has tension and the rear is doing work where there isn't tension. Increasing the gears might reduce that (not sure how) but it won't eliminate it.
There are real engineers working on these products. Derailleurs have, quite clearly, stood the test of time. You (probably not an engineer) would have to make a much stronger case that drastic changes to them is a good idea. You are basically assuming that all those people haven't thought about this stuff.
If you don't think it's a good idea, why even suggest it? You haven't addressed the "shifting under load" problem (in any clear/convincing way).
i'm really just spitballing here. i am an engineer actually, just not an ME. we have discussions on how to do things differently, some ideas are good and some are not, right? if we don't try to do things differently then we are only doing the same thing and that is not engineering, that is stagnation.
If the FD cage was just a bit wider than the chain then the cage would have to change angle to accommodate changing chain angle. Jockey wheels don't have this issue, they can handle an angled chain without having to change angle themselves. FD cages can't be too tight on the chain and they require trim functions.
Pushing from the outside is more crude than pushing from the inside.
edit: do the modern high end electric FDs change cage angle?
Pushing from the outside is more crude than pushing from the inside.
edit: do the modern high end electric FDs change cage angle?
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,536
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,530 Times
in
1,857 Posts
The basic premise ,... that it is easier to shift down up front than in back ... bespeaks to me of an inability to use derailleurs properly. Therefore .... you know ...
If the initial premise is flawed, no amount of reasoning thereafter will lead to the correct solution because the problem is not what one thinks it is.
Width is the main reason i see for not having more front gears (chain rings.) An 11-speed cassette is about two inches wide, and there would need to be a little clearance for the crank arm--at least to allow for the chain to slide on and off the outer ring ... plus the width of the arm itself ... so the drive train and BB would be at least eight inches wide ...
As far as operation .... I don't mean to demean anyone, but I am pretty clumsy, and I can shift even under hard load .... it does involve lifting off on the pedal pressure when the chain is unwrapping and moving, but that is not hard. If people think shifting is like pushing buttons (except for people with electronic units) then maybe they might think that the problem is the derailleurs .... but anyone who has driven a stick shift understand lightening load and shifting ratios ...... Or anyone who has ridden a bike enough to notice that shifting involves the chain and the pedals are connected to the chain.
Sure, shifting under load is loud and abrupt, and could lead to a snapped chain .... but it works ... and shifting in the rear, with modern mechanisms, is about as thoughtless and effortless as can be.
I'd suggest the OP practice. Also, good on him (her) for thinking outside the box and all ... but sometimes the box contains exactly what is needed.
If the initial premise is flawed, no amount of reasoning thereafter will lead to the correct solution because the problem is not what one thinks it is.
Width is the main reason i see for not having more front gears (chain rings.) An 11-speed cassette is about two inches wide, and there would need to be a little clearance for the crank arm--at least to allow for the chain to slide on and off the outer ring ... plus the width of the arm itself ... so the drive train and BB would be at least eight inches wide ...
As far as operation .... I don't mean to demean anyone, but I am pretty clumsy, and I can shift even under hard load .... it does involve lifting off on the pedal pressure when the chain is unwrapping and moving, but that is not hard. If people think shifting is like pushing buttons (except for people with electronic units) then maybe they might think that the problem is the derailleurs .... but anyone who has driven a stick shift understand lightening load and shifting ratios ...... Or anyone who has ridden a bike enough to notice that shifting involves the chain and the pedals are connected to the chain.
Sure, shifting under load is loud and abrupt, and could lead to a snapped chain .... but it works ... and shifting in the rear, with modern mechanisms, is about as thoughtless and effortless as can be.
I'd suggest the OP practice. Also, good on him (her) for thinking outside the box and all ... but sometimes the box contains exactly what is needed.
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,318
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4284 Post(s)
Liked 1,377 Times
in
958 Posts
So, you mean narrower than it is. Why isn't it narrower already?
The thousands of other engineers who have spend years on this already aren't "spitballing". You really have to do more than "spitballing". A lot more.
Some ideas are better thought out and some are not. You'll tend to get better ideas from experts than those who are not. Compared to people in the industry (who you keep insulting), you are not an expert. You have to do more work to convince people to consider your ideas.
You are making a big assumption that people (referenced above) are "doing the same thing" or "stagnating" and don't really have any evidence that is going on.
The thousands of other engineers who have spend years on this already aren't "spitballing". You really have to do more than "spitballing". A lot more.
Some ideas are better thought out and some are not. You'll tend to get better ideas from experts than those who are not. Compared to people in the industry (who you keep insulting), you are not an expert. You have to do more work to convince people to consider your ideas.
You are making a big assumption that people (referenced above) are "doing the same thing" or "stagnating" and don't really have any evidence that is going on.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-18-23 at 06:59 PM.
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,318
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4284 Post(s)
Liked 1,377 Times
in
958 Posts
Rear shifts tolerate load and happen quickly enough that you really don't have to do this for rear shifts.
All this stuff means rear shifting is easier. This shouldn't be controversial (it's pretty clear). Yet here you arguing that it's equivalent.
=========================
EDIT: never mind. I misunderstood what he said. (We pretty much are agreeing.)
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-19-23 at 06:53 AM.
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,536
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,530 Times
in
1,857 Posts
You said :
Apparently I was not being clear … What I said was
I said this because the first post said:
See ….the OP in the first post advanced the premise that shifting up front was mechanically easier than shifting in the rear …. Which I think both you and I think is completely incorrect.
Which is why I said:
Which is why I think there must be some misunderstand, based on you saying Pretty much, reading is fundamental, and all that.
This is sort of a shower thoughts question, but why do bikes favor large numbers of gears in the rear vs the front? I understand why many prefer 1x setups, but when I underestimate a climb and need a bailout gear fast, shifting to a smaller chainring is just mechanically easier than having to push up to a larger rear cog.] {emphasis added}
Which is why I said:
Last edited by Maelochs; 07-18-23 at 08:19 PM.
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,536
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,530 Times
in
1,857 Posts
YES!!!! In fact that is what I said in ever single post. I said it because we all know .... IT IS A FACT.
It is a fact we have (most of us) learned over decades and tens of thousands of miles of riding and shifting.
Read back carefully over what I have posted. pretty sure it will be clear.
It is a fact we have (most of us) learned over decades and tens of thousands of miles of riding and shifting.
Read back carefully over what I have posted. pretty sure it will be clear.
#62
señor miembro
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 6,664
Bikes: '70s - '80s Campagnolo
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3911 Post(s)
Liked 6,525 Times
in
3,236 Posts
#63
extra bitter
Thread Starter
The basic premise ,... that it is easier to shift down up front than in back ... bespeaks to me of an inability to use derailleurs properly. Therefore .... you know ...
If the initial premise is flawed, no amount of reasoning thereafter will lead to the correct solution because the problem is not what one thinks it is.
As far as operation .... I don't mean to demean anyone, but I am pretty clumsy, and I can shift even under hard load ....
I'd suggest the OP practice. Also, good on him (her) for thinking outside the box and all ... but sometimes the box contains exactly what is needed.
If the initial premise is flawed, no amount of reasoning thereafter will lead to the correct solution because the problem is not what one thinks it is.
As far as operation .... I don't mean to demean anyone, but I am pretty clumsy, and I can shift even under hard load ....
I'd suggest the OP practice. Also, good on him (her) for thinking outside the box and all ... but sometimes the box contains exactly what is needed.
Regardless, I do in fact consider it pretty demeaning for someone to tell me there’s essentially no basis for my question and I just need to learn how to ride a bike. I’m also reminded of why my participation on this forum trailed off several years ago.
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,599
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4492 Post(s)
Liked 4,964 Times
in
3,069 Posts
There are real engineers working on these products. Derailleurs have, quite clearly, stood the test of time. You (probably not an engineer) would have to make a much stronger case that drastic changes to them is a good idea. You are basically assuming that all those people haven't thought about this stuff.
.
There are genuine alternative technologies to replace derailleurs, but there is no valid case for a back-to front Nx2 derailleur system.
Let’s forget about front vs rear shift quality and start with the very basic issue of gear ratios. If you want a 12x2 with the same range as a 2x12 then you need for example a 50T large front ring and 34T small ring with another 10 front rings in incremental steps between them. At the rear you need a 10T small cog and say a 34T large cog. Do I need to go any further with this ridiculous proposal? Or is it obvious that it won’t be a viable solution?
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,599
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4492 Post(s)
Liked 4,964 Times
in
3,069 Posts
The front is slow and clunky because it is operated wrong. The front derailer depends on a spring to knock the chain off to the lower gears under torque. Shimano’s Rapidrise suffered from the same problem. The spring just isn’t strong enough to knock the chain off under high torque situations and, thus, the derailer just clatters against that chain until torque decreases enough that the spring can knock off the chain. If front derailers worked the same way as rear deraiers…i.e. the cable drags the chain off the larger gears to the smaller ones…the shifts on the front would be as lightning fast and efficient as the rear. Suntour made a few of the high normal front derailers (as did Shimano) that worked really well back in the days before pins and ramps on the chainrings.
.
.
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,599
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4492 Post(s)
Liked 4,964 Times
in
3,069 Posts
It’s heavy and reduces drivetrain efficiency and the industry is moving toward 1xN drivetrains anyway. So I guess the big players don’t see a viable case.
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,536
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,530 Times
in
1,857 Posts
Front shifts are inherently less rapid because the distance the derailleur must move is greater. Whether the big jumps were up front or in the back, so long as the two- (or three-) chain ring design in used, one derailleur is going to have to move the chain a relatively larger distance.
I am not sure how a bike could be designed so that the front derailleur would shift a lightly-loaded chain .... there is not enough space up front (ahead of the chain rings, between the chain and tire) or under the BB for a jockey-wheel arrangement (safely (as I see it)) and frankly ....I don't see the need.
Modern derailleurs are amazing compared to what we had a few decades ago .... and they worked well enough back then. Perfect? Nothing is. Useful? No front derailleur has even stopped me from riding.
I am not sure how a bike could be designed so that the front derailleur would shift a lightly-loaded chain .... there is not enough space up front (ahead of the chain rings, between the chain and tire) or under the BB for a jockey-wheel arrangement (safely (as I see it)) and frankly ....I don't see the need.
Modern derailleurs are amazing compared to what we had a few decades ago .... and they worked well enough back then. Perfect? Nothing is. Useful? No front derailleur has even stopped me from riding.
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,318
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4284 Post(s)
Liked 1,377 Times
in
958 Posts
No, not quite as clear as you could be. (Consider not using the excessive/extraneous periods and spaces.)
See ….the OP in the first post advanced the premise that shifting up front was mechanically easier than shifting in the rear …. Which I think both you and I think is completely incorrect.
I think his conclusion is a result of the springs (and lower friction) that make shifting to a smaller thing (cog or ring) easier than shifting to a larger thing (within the same set of things). If he's talking about shifting to the biggest cog in the rear, it could be easier to drop to the smaller ring in the front than shifting to the biggest cog in the rear. (Note that some mountain bike front derailleurs are backwards regarding how the spring works).
It's not really that. It's pretty quick to move the front derailleur.
It takes longer for the chain to reposition after the derailleur moves. The reason for this is that the gear is (generally) larger in the front. The pins and ramps to get it to the larger ring need time too to get into position, which can only happen in one (or two?) places on the ring. Dropping to a lower gear can happen anywhere along the ring.
This is sort of a shower thoughts question, but why do bikes favor large numbers of gears in the rear vs the front? I understand why many prefer 1x setups, but when I underestimate a climb and need a bailout gear fast, shifting to a smaller chainring is just mechanically easier than having to push up to a larger rear cog.
It takes longer for the chain to reposition after the derailleur moves. The reason for this is that the gear is (generally) larger in the front. The pins and ramps to get it to the larger ring need time too to get into position, which can only happen in one (or two?) places on the ring. Dropping to a lower gear can happen anywhere along the ring.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-19-23 at 09:09 AM.
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,318
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4284 Post(s)
Liked 1,377 Times
in
958 Posts
The front is slow and clunky because it is operated wrong. The front derailer depends on a spring to knock the chain off to the lower gears under torque. Shimano’s Rapidrise suffered from the same problem. The spring just isn’t strong enough to knock the chain off under high torque situations and, thus, the derailer just clatters against that chain until torque decreases enough that the spring can knock off the chain. If front derailers worked the same way as rear deraiers…i.e. the cable drags the chain off the larger gears to the smaller ones…the shifts on the front would be as lightning fast and efficient as the rear. Suntour made a few of the high normal front derailers (as did Shimano) that worked really well back in the days before pins and ramps on the chainrings.
Going to the small ring, the derailleur move the chain over and lets it hang over the smaller ring (so the teeth on the larger ring can't catch it). The rotation of the ring causes the chain to drop on the smaller one,
Going to the larger ring, the derailleur move the chain over so it can catch on the pins and ramps, which lift the chain up so the teeth pick up the chain.
Because there's more friction, more force (and enough) is needed. It might be more reliable to use muscle power for that since the amount of force can be varied. A spring can't vary its force, which means a spring that happens to be or get weak might not work.
It pretty much comes down to mechanics. It would be difficult to put a cluster of gears on the crank. The other issue is that when shifting the chain on the front derailleur, it is under tension whereas when shifting on the rear the chain is slack. The most we see on the front is three chainrings.
They aren't being made any more either. So, saying you can "get" them is misleading.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-19-23 at 09:06 AM.
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,318
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4284 Post(s)
Liked 1,377 Times
in
958 Posts
Nonexperts have a "harebrained" (warning: an exaggeration) idea and can only imagine the pros but no cons. They only see the cons of established solutions (developed by actual experts) they have an issue with but none of the pros.
To do this "right", they should see the pros/cons of both sides.
Let’s forget about front vs rear shift quality and start with the very basic issue of gear ratios. If you want a 12x2 with the same range as a 2x12 then you need for example a 50T large front ring and 34T small ring with another 10 front rings in incremental steps between them. At the rear you need a 10T small cog and say a 34T large cog. Do I need to go any further with this ridiculous proposal? Or is it obvious that it won’t be a viable solution?
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,313
Bikes: yes, i have one
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1147 Post(s)
Liked 1,187 Times
in
690 Posts
Seriously? did i hurt your feelings too? what on earth did i say that was insulting to the ME profession? just the mere suggestion of something different? you guys have some pretty thin skin.
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,599
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4492 Post(s)
Liked 4,964 Times
in
3,069 Posts
My profession is F1 engineering with a lot of keen armchair engineers telling us how we could do it all much better. So quite a few years ago we decided to set up a company wide forum where literally any employee (outside of formal engineering) could propose ideas about how to improve our performance. About once a month we used to review all the suggestions and I don't remember a single one that made it past initial review. But it was pretty entertaining!
So I very much doubt this thread will spark a major push toward Nx2 drivetrains. They are a non-starter in terms of the derailleur concept as soon as you start specifying real world gear ratios as I did a few posts ago.
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,599
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4492 Post(s)
Liked 4,964 Times
in
3,069 Posts
#75
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,318
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4284 Post(s)
Liked 1,377 Times
in
958 Posts
i'm really just spitballing here. i am an engineer actually, just not an ME. we have discussions on how to do things differently, some ideas are good and some are not, right? if we don't try to do things differently then we are only doing the same thing and that is not engineering, that is stagnation.
You are overly dismissive of the work that other people did. It's weird arrogance from an internet nobody.
Note that the "we" doesn't include you because you are the one saving the day with your "great" new idea. You have no basis for accusing other people of "doing the same thing" and "stagnating" just because you came up with some idea. "Bad ideas" aren't not "doing something different" anyway. Unless, you execute the bad idea.
No, not "just" that. The problem is that you don't seem to know enough about what you are talking about and the rest of us are stuck having to read it.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-19-23 at 09:19 AM.