Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

I'm sorry...some modern drivetrains are stupid

Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

I'm sorry...some modern drivetrains are stupid

Old 03-31-20, 01:58 PM
  #26  
abshipp 
Senior Member
 
abshipp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Rockford IL
Posts: 1,529

Bikes: 1976 Motobecane Grand Jubile, 1977 Schwinn Super Le Tour 12.2 Chrome, 1981 Trek 716, 2014 Canfield Nimble 9

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1047 Post(s)
Liked 593 Times in 277 Posts
Originally Posted by mrv View Post
I would love to get something like a 135mm rear hub with a 3X5 gearing and a lot less dish on the wheel. Wouldn't that give a long lasting durable rear wheel set up? I think so. It's OK to say tell me how I'm wrong. (and yep, I'm still talking rim brakes....)

ciao!
You're not wrong!

Many modern downhill mountain bikes are going to 7 speed rear cassettes but with narrower 11 speed cog spacing. Accomplishing the same thing you are describing. But disc brakes, and not 135mm spacing. But your reasoning is sound, at least according to people wanting to sell new DH bikes

Available up to 150/157mm "OLD"

As far as hub spacing, I believe things are mostly getting wider in the dropouts in order to help the chainstays swallow wider tires. AFAIK there really isn't much difference in freehub width between 8 speed and 12 speed. The trend towards wider tires is also driving the popularity of 1X systems since the wide chainstays and tires limit maximum chainring size. That's also why the a few new freehub standards have been invented, so that you can fit a smaller 9 or 10 tooth cog to make up for the limited chainring size.
abshipp is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 02:04 PM
  #27  
Classtime 
Senior Member
 
Classtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,151

Bikes: 81 Medici, 84 Centurion Turbo, 2011 Richard Sachs, '90 Alpina Team, 85 TREK 620, 2011 Milwaukee Road

Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 810 Post(s)
Liked 186 Times in 137 Posts
I don't have any pictures but some folks take beautiful vintage race bikes, spread the rear drop outs to 130, put on a chromium plated 11-34, a derailleur with a 3X long cage, a triple crankset, and then the cockpit is crazy tall like monkey bars.....

At least that bike up there is orange and born that way.
__________________
I don't do: disks, tubeless, e-shifting, or bead head nymphs.
Classtime is offline  
Likes For Classtime:
Old 03-31-20, 02:21 PM
  #28  
scarlson
Senior Member
 
scarlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Medford MA
Posts: 694

Bikes: Ron Cooper touring, 1959 Jack Taylor 650b ladyback touring tandem, Vitus 979, Joe Bell painted Claud Butler Dalesman, Colin Laing curved tube tandem, heavily-reworked 1982 Trek 6xx

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked 308 Times in 184 Posts
Originally Posted by non-fixie View Post
So did I. And although the font style looks similar, I don't think there's a relationship between the two. The bikes are from Boulder CO, and bear names like "Thunder Pig".
Yeah the font is really similar. It makes me wonder if anybody's around anymore at Olivetti typewriters to complain about copyright.

That Valentine, BTW, was designed by Ettore Sotsass, and came with a beautiful case as well:
I know! I had one once (briefly). I used to repair and also flip typewriters, back when I lived in Vermont. I'd been looking for one for a while. I got it because the seller called it the "Valentines" and not the Valentine S" so it wasn't showing up in searches. Not the most money I made on a typewriter flip, but one of the top 5 no doubt. The most money I ever made on a typewriter flip was a 26" wide carriage LC Smith actuarial model, for doing ledger sheets, with small-caps type and decimal tabulator, that I sold to the owner of a local museum. It had yellow spray paint all over it, which I was able to remove with methylacetate to restore the original finish.

I still have 5 or so typewriters, mainly ones I really like or can't possibly sell.

My very first computer was also an Olivetti. An M15 laptop with a detachable keyboard and two 3.5" floppy disk drives:

OK, back to American bikes.
Ha, neat
scarlson is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 02:25 PM
  #29  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,085
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1477 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 267 Posts
Originally Posted by Classtime View Post
I don't have any pictures but some folks take beautiful vintage race bikes, spread the rear drop outs to 130, put on a chromium plated 11-34, a derailleur with a 3X long cage, a triple crankset, and then the cockpit is crazy tall like monkey bars.....

At least that bike up there is orange and born that way.
I do that except for the DO spreading and crazy cockpit. Go with a standard GT RD as well.

seypat is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 03:03 PM
  #30  
tashi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,323
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 21 Posts
Yeah, derailleurs that work exceptionally well but aren't pretty are stupid. Holds the chain on in rough terrain? Stupid. Allows for the gear range of a traditional triple with just one chainring, shifter and derailleur? Stupid. Automatically swings out of the way instead of breaking when hit? Stupid.

Modern drivetrains aren't fragile. Mine have proven to be more durable than older designs from the 80's and 90's. Stupid, eh? Also, when I'm riding, they look just as good as old-school derailleurs - 'cause I'm not looking at them.
tashi is offline  
Likes For tashi:
Old 03-31-20, 03:16 PM
  #31  
repechage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,358
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1326 Post(s)
Liked 287 Times in 232 Posts
Originally Posted by scarlson View Post
I thought Olivetti made typewriters.

Obviously not the work of Ettore Sottsass or Mario Bellini.

The fork does have a bit of Ducati Monster to it.
repechage is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 03:20 PM
  #32  
tashi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,323
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 21 Posts
Originally Posted by Wildwood View Post
It seems to me the size of the cassette dictates the sliding drop-outs to keep the rd out of the cogs across any range of adjustment (and for disc brakes too)

.
Sliding dropouts arenít necessary for wide-range cassettes.
tashi is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 03:28 PM
  #33  
repechage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,358
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1326 Post(s)
Liked 287 Times in 232 Posts
Originally Posted by USAZorro View Post
Those transparent pedals are super light and awesome!
you are supposed to have those new custom medial cuneiform ti bone replacements with the outboard bearing and threaded cup.
repechage is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 03:36 PM
  #34  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 7,968

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2097 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 472 Times in 343 Posts
Originally Posted by droppedandlost View Post
anyone care to explain the fork?
A truss built to the same stiffness and strength as a cantilever (all typical forks) can be built far lighter. I've had a chance to pick up TiCycles bikes built for off road with truss forks. The front ends weigh nothing. Engineers use cantilevers when they are the only feasible choice or weight and materials used isn't an issue. (The fork isn't the only weight savings. The steerer has almost no structural function and needs only be strong enough to handle the torque loads from the handlebars. (TiCycles has taken the design a step further. The front of the truss ties to the stem at the handlebars. Stem now is also no longer a cantilever. Now headtube can also be lighter since the rider load is transferred directly to the axle through the truss.)

Ben
79pmooney is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 03:48 PM
  #35  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 7,968

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2097 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 472 Times in 343 Posts
Originally Posted by repechage View Post
you are supposed to have those new custom medial cuneiform ti bone replacements with the outboard bearing and threaded cup.
Because of liability issues, they will only do that surgery for the track crowd. Issue is with threaded cranks. As of now, the pin at the "foot" needs to be threaded into the crank. In a crash a rider will NOT release from that crank. Lawsuits will happen. But the track crowd have been doing bolt-in fastening, double toestraps, toestraps over clipless, etc. for years to prevent accidental un-cleats fixed at speed. Locked in for a crash? That's life. They wouldn't even think about suing.
79pmooney is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 04:00 PM
  #36  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,085
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1477 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 267 Posts
Originally Posted by tashi View Post
Yeah, derailleurs that work exceptionally well but aren't pretty are stupid. Holds the chain on in rough terrain? Stupid. Allows for the gear range of a traditional triple with just one chainring, shifter and derailleur? Stupid. Automatically swings out of the way instead of breaking when hit? Stupid.

Modern drivetrains aren't fragile. Mine have proven to be more durable than older designs from the 80's and 90's. Stupid, eh? Also, when I'm riding, they look just as good as old-school derailleurs - 'cause I'm not looking at them.
Actually, I run the triples so I can cover dramatic terrain changes with just one or two shifts of the FD and maybe 1 shift of the RD. Shifting 7-8 times one way then the same back the other way gets old quickly. At least it does to me.
seypat is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 04:05 PM
  #37  
crank_addict
Senior Member
 
crank_addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 7,218
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1361 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 369 Times in 241 Posts
Not stupid drivetrain. Rather serves double use as a wood shaper for balsa core, cloth resin wrapped frame- future DIY bike making when the World has its power shut down.

crank_addict is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 04:07 PM
  #38  
tashi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,323
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 21 Posts
Originally Posted by seypat View Post
Actually, I run the triples so I can cover dramatic terrain changes with just one or two shifts of the FD and maybe 1 shift of the RD. Shifting 7-8 times one way then the same back the other way gets old quickly. At least it does to me.
Not that I was advocating for single-ring drivetrains over triples for everyone buuuuut: Put a modern derailleur on that triple and you'd get a quieter drivetrain and eliminate dropped chains.

Last edited by tashi; 03-31-20 at 04:16 PM.
tashi is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 04:14 PM
  #39  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,085
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1477 Post(s)
Liked 371 Times in 267 Posts
Originally Posted by tashi View Post
Not that I was advocating for single-ring drivetrains over triples for everyone buuuuut: Put a modern derailleur on that triple and you'd get a quitter drivetrain and eliminate dropped chains.
I run friction barcons for the same reason. On an all day ride, it reduces the amount of physical shifting I have to do when I need to change gears. To be fair, I am never in enough of a hurry to worry about missing shifts.
seypat is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 04:15 PM
  #40  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,800

Bikes: Breezer Radar

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1506 Post(s)
Liked 514 Times in 265 Posts
Originally Posted by droppedandlost View Post
anyone care to explain the fork?
Jones Bikes makes titanium truss forks kind of like that, because titanium is so flexible it needs the extra triangulation. If that Olivetti fork is steel - I can't imagine why they'd make a truss fork out of steel.

Last edited by tyrion; 03-31-20 at 07:29 PM.
tyrion is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 07:15 PM
  #41  
Salamandrine 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,697

Bikes: 78 Masi Criterium, 68 PX10, 2016 Mercian King of Mercia, Rivendell Clem Smith Jr

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2054 Post(s)
Liked 259 Times in 199 Posts
Originally Posted by tashi View Post
Yeah, derailleurs that work exceptionally well but aren't pretty are stupid. Holds the chain on in rough terrain? Stupid. Allows for the gear range of a traditional triple with just one chainring, shifter and derailleur? Stupid. Automatically swings out of the way instead of breaking when hit? Stupid.

Modern drivetrains aren't fragile. Mine have proven to be more durable than older designs from the 80's and 90's. Stupid, eh? Also, when I'm riding, they look just as good as old-school derailleurs - 'cause I'm not looking at them.
What then is the main advantage of these newfangled 1x setups? Is it mainly to prevent chain drop? Does it help with chain suck? I'm also wondering about these super low gears. What is a 32/50 useful for? That'd be about an 18.5" gear on a 29er. I haven't ridden a gear that low since tricycles... Seems like that's low enough that staying upright would take some effort. I can only imagine it's for getting traction on very very short very steep little hills and bluffs with lots of mud. Or is it for trials type stuff?

I'm not really a mountain biker, though I ride off road. No judgments, just wondering.
Salamandrine is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 07:25 PM
  #42  
alo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 90 Times in 68 Posts
Originally Posted by Salamandrine View Post
I'm also wondering about these super low gears. What is a 32/50 useful for? That'd be about an 18.5" gear on a 29er. I haven't ridden a gear that low since tricycles... Seems like that's low enough that staying upright would take some effort. I can only imagine it's for getting traction on very very short very steep little hills and bluffs with lots of mud. Or is it for trials type stuff?
If I had a bike like that, I would want a larger front sprocket.
alo is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 07:54 PM
  #43  
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 19,562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 294 Times in 231 Posts
Originally Posted by Salamandrine View Post
What then is the main advantage of these newfangled 1x setups? Is it mainly to prevent chain drop?
1X got popular when there was a trend towards super-short chain stays. That made a front derailleur a pain. Now that there is at least some movement away from super-short chainstays, MTB are still stuck with 1X
unterhausen is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 07:58 PM
  #44  
RobbieTunes 
Half drunk? Finish!
 
RobbieTunes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Very Southern Indiana
Posts: 27,137
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked 876 Times in 556 Posts
1x.....


50T Front.
10-42 rear.
__________________
Robbie ♪♫♪...☻
I have unfinished business.

RobbieTunes is offline  
Likes For RobbieTunes:
Old 03-31-20, 08:13 PM
  #45  
abshipp 
Senior Member
 
abshipp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Rockford IL
Posts: 1,529

Bikes: 1976 Motobecane Grand Jubile, 1977 Schwinn Super Le Tour 12.2 Chrome, 1981 Trek 716, 2014 Canfield Nimble 9

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1047 Post(s)
Liked 593 Times in 277 Posts
Originally Posted by Salamandrine View Post
What then is the main advantage of these newfangled 1x setups? Is it mainly to prevent chain drop?
Yes, modern 1X rings use narrow-wide chainrings that effectively hold on to the chain better, since every other tooth is wider so that it matches the different widths between links of chain. This helps prevent the chain climbing up over a tooth on the inside or outside and falling off.

Does it help with chain suck?
Absolutely! Most 1X specific rear derailleurs have clutches in the pivot of the cage that prevent excessive and sudden movement forward of the derailleur cage. This helps keep the chain tension tight and helps to minimize chain slap.

I'm also wondering about these super low gears. What is a 32/50 useful for? That'd be about an 18.5" gear on a 29er. I haven't ridden a gear that low since tricycles... Seems like that's low enough that staying upright would take some effort. I can only imagine it's for getting traction on very very short very steep little hills and bluffs with lots of mud. Or is it for trials type stuff?
It's for climbing very steep terrain. On my 29er MTB, I run a 30x42 and often wish for lower gears so that I can sit and spin a bit more. It can be tough to stay upright, but that's just a given on some terrain anyways
abshipp is offline  
Likes For abshipp:
Old 03-31-20, 08:13 PM
  #46  
abshipp 
Senior Member
 
abshipp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Rockford IL
Posts: 1,529

Bikes: 1976 Motobecane Grand Jubile, 1977 Schwinn Super Le Tour 12.2 Chrome, 1981 Trek 716, 2014 Canfield Nimble 9

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1047 Post(s)
Liked 593 Times in 277 Posts
Originally Posted by RobbieTunes View Post
50T Front.
10-42 rear.


Were you able to use a single standard chain?
abshipp is offline  
Old 03-31-20, 08:40 PM
  #47  
tashi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,323
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 21 Posts
Aside from what Iíve covered already the Main things are the clutch and the gear range. The chain canít fall off (mostly) and no chainsuck either, particularly with a narrow wide chainring. Although chainsuck hasnít hasnít been a problem for the last ten years plus anyway.

Ditching the front d is a big plus for mountain biking. Fewer gears to keep track of, room for a dropper post lever on the bars and no issues with chain suck and botched front shifts. Less bashing chain rings as well.

The gearing is, well, personal preference. With a wide range 12-speed you can get over a 500% difference which allows for low gears for super steep and tech climbs while leaving good gearing for hauling ass out to the trails on the road. Simple for the manufacturers as well as one setup can accommodate everyone.

Personally, I have an 11-42 10-speed with an oval 32 up front (niner wheels) and itís excellent for Vancouver Island technical mountain biking, particularly when youíre grinding up a super steep fire road or technical single track or you already have a couple hours of hard riding in your legs. Next cog stack will go to 45, I donít want a 50. Itís hard to stay up going that slow, but it can save you from walking on super tech, super steep climbs and when youíre blown during long rides and also let you sit and spin so you have something in the tank for later. And a LOT of mountain Bikin is about it being ďhard to stay upĒ for various reasons.
tashi is offline  
Likes For tashi:
Old 03-31-20, 11:03 PM
  #48  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,266
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1471 Post(s)
Liked 335 Times in 191 Posts
Originally Posted by Salamandrine View Post
I'm also wondering about these super low gears. What is a 32/50 useful for?
Hills.



I can only imagine it's for getting traction on very very short very steep little hills and bluffs with lots of mud.
Mostly not about traction. If anything, traction is often easier to come by in higher gears, since higher gears make it easier to avoid delivering torque spikes to the rear wheel that might cause the tire to slip from your pedaling forces. The main time that might stop being true is if you bottom out your gearing and start riding lumpy because you fail to stay on top of the higher gear.
When climbing super-steep gravel roads, if you need to stop, it's often a good idea to shift to a gear a few steps higher than what you were riding at. It means you'll need to push with a lot of torque to get rolling again, but you're less likely to have to fight rear wheel slippage, or running out of downstroke on first pedal stroke.

Like with low gears in general, super-low gears like 32-50 are mostly about not bottoming out your gearing. Sometimes it's also about being able to accelerate: bikes get jostled around more easily at lower speeds, so when you've got a rough patch on a steep climb, sometimes the easiest solution is to power through it with a brief speed burst.

Seems like that's low enough that staying upright would take some effort.
No. In your hypothetical situation, we're looking at about 4.4mph at 80rpm. Even bottomed out all the way down to 50rpm, it's still 2.8mph. If the riding isn't technical, those aren't difficult to speeds to ride at. Riding on flat ground at 2.8mph usually feels very weird, but that's because the normal pedaling cycle is part of our bicycle balance, and you aren't going to be pedaling with normal force and cadence if you're doing 2.8mph on flat ground.
HTupolev is offline  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 04-01-20, 03:53 AM
  #49  
JaccoW
Tinkerer
 
JaccoW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,378

Bikes: Batavus Randonneur GL, Gazelle Orange Excellent, Gazelle Super Licht, Gazelle Grand Tourist

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 429 Post(s)
Liked 293 Times in 191 Posts
Originally Posted by Salamandrine View Post
What is a 32/50 useful for? That'd be about an 18.5" gear on a 29er. I haven't ridden a gear that low since tricycles... Seems like that's low enough that staying upright would take some effort.
That's about what is recommended for fully loaded touring. Most die-hard world tourers won't like a 1X setup because they are conservative and tend to prefer proven/readily available technology. But you see the technology a lot on long-distance randonneur bikes.


(Link)

Last edited by JaccoW; 04-01-20 at 03:56 AM.
JaccoW is offline  
Likes For JaccoW:
Old 04-01-20, 06:06 AM
  #50  
nlerner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,828
Mentioned: 283 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1440 Post(s)
Liked 462 Times in 279 Posts
Yeah, we should all be running Campy NR derailleurs with their cracked pulleys and narrow range, just like Eddie did!

Yeah, 1 x 11 is just stoopid.

nlerner is offline  
Likes For nlerner:

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.