I think Shimano is finally developing a bicycle gearbox!
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think Shimano is finally developing a bicycle gearbox!
Hello all, I haven't been on here in years. I used to be a regular poster but now I am the Assistant Editor at BikeRadar.com and have to look after those forums!
I've been doing some digging and have found a patent that strongly suggests Shimano is pretty far down the line developing a gearbox for bicycles.
This is, obviously, fairly huge news, and thought it may be of interest to you all.
Let me know what you think!
#2
Senior Member
Surely that's just an electric drive such as is fitted to many e-bikes. Electric motors would need to be geared down to drive cranks.
#3
Senior Member
No, it's not. It's basically an encased compact derailleur system with cassetes on both ends, at least one of them sliding in order to maintain a straight chainline.
#4
Some Weirdo
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Rexburg, ID
Posts: 502
Bikes: '86 Schwinn Prelude, '91 Scott Sawtooth, '73 Raleigh "Grand 3"
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked 141 Times
in
92 Posts
I'm not buying into the hype.
__________________
Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.
Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.
#5
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,629
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3871 Post(s)
Liked 2,568 Times
in
1,579 Posts
Likes For ThermionicScott:
#6
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,614
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10963 Post(s)
Liked 7,489 Times
in
4,189 Posts
Cool?
So would this be good for commuting since it would be enclosed? And for MTB or would it not shift fast enough and be a tank in weight?
So far I havent been riding and come upon a situation where I wished I had all the gears located in the bottom of the main triangle, so I havent explored this tech at all.
So would this be good for commuting since it would be enclosed? And for MTB or would it not shift fast enough and be a tank in weight?
So far I havent been riding and come upon a situation where I wished I had all the gears located in the bottom of the main triangle, so I havent explored this tech at all.
Likes For Gconan:
#8
Callipygian Connoisseur
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 564 Post(s)
Liked 350 Times
in
190 Posts
Meh. What's the date on that? The patent world is full of designs which never see the light of day. This could be something from long ago with no real intention to develop. Not that I wouldn't be interested in a Shimano gear box system, but I can't get too enthused about vapor (hard)ware.
-Kedosto
-Kedosto
#9
Troublemaker
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 460
Bikes: Yes. The more the better.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times
in
23 Posts
Meh. What's the date on that? The patent world is full of designs which never see the light of day. This could be something from long ago with no real intention to develop. Not that I wouldn't be interested in a Shimano gear box system, but I can't get too enthused about vapor (hard)ware.
-Kedosto
-Kedosto
https://patentimages.storage.googlea...90011037A1.pdf
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
One thing about the cassettes is puzzling. The two end combinations (19-41 and 41-19) wrap a total of 60 combined teeth. All of the others wrap 58 teeth. It seems goofy to add that extra bit at the ends when leaving it at 39 would keep the same chain length for all combinations, reducing or eliminating a DR-like tensioner. I'm sure the motivation is to get the same range as a standard DR system but it seems like a lot to give up, extreme even. Do you think that there's some other reason for it?
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
One thing about the cassettes is puzzling. The two end combinations (19-41 and 41-19) wrap a total of 60 combined teeth. All of the others wrap 58 teeth. It seems goofy to add that extra bit at the ends when leaving it at 39 would keep the same chain length for all combinations, reducing or eliminating a DR-like tensioner. I'm sure the motivation is to get the same range as a standard DR system but it seems like a lot to give up, extreme even. Do you think that there's some other reason for it?
#12
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Meh. What's the date on that? The patent world is full of designs which never see the light of day. This could be something from long ago with no real intention to develop. Not that I wouldn't be interested in a Shimano gear box system, but I can't get too enthused about vapor (hard)ware.
-Kedosto
-Kedosto
I am awaiting comment from the big S and will update the article as and when I hear back.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
The tensioner drawbacks would be: increase in drag from the drive, an extra moving part to wear out or malfunction, an extra complication in the engineering and design, extra weight, and I could see it possibly reducing the persistence of chain lube. Intuition tells me that Shimano has an additional reason for that design. I suspect marketing (eg, has the *same range*)
Maybe they couldn't make the shifting work without the tensioner?
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
My first thought also, and the chart listing ratios seems to imply that, but the ratio with the logical 39 tooth is 2.05 compared to 2.15 with the 41. It seems like a lot to give up for a small improvement in range.
The tensioner drawbacks would be: increase in drag from the drive, an extra moving part to wear out or malfunction, an extra complication in the engineering and design, extra weight, and I could see it possibly reducing the persistence of chain lube. Intuition tells me that Shimano has an additional reason for that design. I suspect marketing (eg, has the *same range*)
Maybe they couldn't make the shifting work without the tensioner?
The tensioner drawbacks would be: increase in drag from the drive, an extra moving part to wear out or malfunction, an extra complication in the engineering and design, extra weight, and I could see it possibly reducing the persistence of chain lube. Intuition tells me that Shimano has an additional reason for that design. I suspect marketing (eg, has the *same range*)
Maybe they couldn't make the shifting work without the tensioner?
Last edited by tyrion; 11-08-19 at 11:00 AM. Reason: added image
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Still it's double the amount to take up with just the extra 2 teeth at the extremes which still bugs me.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
I'm not an engineer, but it looks to me like this thing could have less friction than a standard derailleur drivetrain - straight chainline, no sharp turns around jockey wheels, no tiny 11 tooth cogs...
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18375 Post(s)
Liked 4,510 Times
in
3,352 Posts
I doubt this will be going anywhere. It will be locked up in patent for the next 20 years.
But, I just don't see any significant advantage of doing a chain sprocket shifting system over say planetary gear system.
I have thought about a triple gearing system on a Velomobile. But, that has quite different needs as a whole.
But, I just don't see any significant advantage of doing a chain sprocket shifting system over say planetary gear system.
I have thought about a triple gearing system on a Velomobile. But, that has quite different needs as a whole.
#18
Senior Member
This thing isn't just a seven-speed sliding cassette paired with a seven-by crankset.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18375 Post(s)
Liked 4,510 Times
in
3,352 Posts
So one ends up with more moving parts.
By going with 19/41 X 41/19, I think it does give a pretty good gearing range, but initially only 7 speed with the equivalent of about 8 teeth between gears. That will be HUGE.
Of course the benefits of internal gearing may outweigh the costs for some applications.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
The problem is that one still has the double internal sprocket system, plus the chain (or belt) back to the rear of the bike. And, with suspension, also the need for a chain tensioner.
So one ends up with more moving parts.
By going with 19/41 X 41/19, I think it does give a pretty good gearing range, but initially only 7 speed with the equivalent of about 8 teeth between gears. That will be HUGE.
Of course the benefits of internal gearing may outweigh the costs for some applications.
So one ends up with more moving parts.
By going with 19/41 X 41/19, I think it does give a pretty good gearing range, but initially only 7 speed with the equivalent of about 8 teeth between gears. That will be HUGE.
Of course the benefits of internal gearing may outweigh the costs for some applications.
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,905
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: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,928 Times
in
2,553 Posts
Interesting. Basically an enclosed and perfect chainline 1X13, ie say, 52 x 11,12,14,16,18,21,24,27,32,36,42,47,52
Maybe a little heavier, maybe a little more friction than the conventional 1X when the 1X is squeaky clean and in a good chainline, but better on friction all the rest of the time. No chainring to smash MTB'ing. No rear derailleur to trash. Belt is far off the trail and should never contact anything. Nothing but a simple belt to keep clean. Drive trains that last many times longer. Yes, a tensioner would be needed for (most) suspension bikes but it can be really simple since the belt chainline never changes.
I like that the key 12,13,15,18,20 ratios are all there but I would never have to ride on those tiny cogs. The small 19 is so much better than a 11! As pointed out by the OP, big cogs and perfect chainlines are the way to go if you aren't wedded to derailleurs. I ride both derailleur bikes and fix gears. Yes, I can feel the difference easily.
Ben
Maybe a little heavier, maybe a little more friction than the conventional 1X when the 1X is squeaky clean and in a good chainline, but better on friction all the rest of the time. No chainring to smash MTB'ing. No rear derailleur to trash. Belt is far off the trail and should never contact anything. Nothing but a simple belt to keep clean. Drive trains that last many times longer. Yes, a tensioner would be needed for (most) suspension bikes but it can be really simple since the belt chainline never changes.
I like that the key 12,13,15,18,20 ratios are all there but I would never have to ride on those tiny cogs. The small 19 is so much better than a 11! As pointed out by the OP, big cogs and perfect chainlines are the way to go if you aren't wedded to derailleurs. I ride both derailleur bikes and fix gears. Yes, I can feel the difference easily.
Ben
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
421 Posts
You can get more detailed info about a patent, such as the so called "prosecution history" by paying for a service that a patent law firm might have at their disposal, which can sometimes shed light on the "why" of patents that are hard to understand on their own. And of course it goes without saying that this is a patent application, not a patent.
In terms of a drive system with gear ratios that allow for perfect chainline, this is used for belt driven power tools such as drill presses, to give them multiple speeds with a single length of belt.
Likes For Gresp15C:
#23
Full Member
One thing about the cassettes is puzzling. The two end combinations (19-41 and 41-19) wrap a total of 60 combined teeth. All of the others wrap 58 teeth. It seems goofy to add that extra bit at the ends when leaving it at 39 would keep the same chain length for all combinations, reducing or eliminating a DR-like tensioner.
A belt can take this kind of advantage of "constant length" gearing. A chain cannot.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Posts: 2,482
Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1237 Post(s)
Liked 321 Times
in
248 Posts
Move over Kindernay. We now have a NEW contender for the STUPIDEST bicycle idea of ALL time.
CONGRATULATIONS. LOL hahahahahahahahahahaha
CONGRATULATIONS. LOL hahahahahahahahahahaha
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
It is still a chain. In order to be shiftable, a chain always requires extra slack and a tensioner. "Keeping it the same length in all gears" would not in any way eliminate the need for that.
A belt can take this kind of advantage of "constant length" gearing. A chain cannot.
A belt can take this kind of advantage of "constant length" gearing. A chain cannot.