Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    857

    Has anyone thought about an Inverted Cassette for fatbikes?

    Just pondering fatbike chainline issues out loud...Inverted Cassette for Fatbikes? | ridingagainstthegrain

  2. #2
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,150
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    Just pondering fatbike chainline issues out loud...Inverted Cassette for Fatbikes? | ridingagainstthegrain
    As you questioned, the derailleur would need a reversed parallelogram (or the XX1 design) and a frame with the chainstay and seatstay clearance. Not simply a flip the cassette mod.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    As you questioned, the derailleur would need a reversed parallelogram (or the XX1 design) and a frame with the chainstay and seatstay clearance. Not simply a flip the cassette mod.
    True...but it might mean less other design sacrifices, or fewer functionality compromises.

    Lance A., indicated that he's running an inverted chainring (with small chainrings), with good effect, running a stock front derailleur.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,776
    Or you could simply run a hubgear and get rid of derailleurs altogether.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  5. #5
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,150
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    True...but it might mean less other design sacrifices, or fewer functionality compromises.

    Lance A., indicated that he's running an inverted chainring (with small chainrings), with good effect, running a stock front derailleur.
    I do not think it would be design sacrifices, just different design requirements, such as making sure the chain will clear the seatstay when in the largest outside cog.

    Using the big chainring on the inside would require some sacrifices.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  6. #6
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Or you could simply run a hubgear and get rid of derailleurs altogether.
    No thanks.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  7. #7
    PSYCHOLUST
    Reputation: scyule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    479
    a bunch of spacers on the freehu first and then HALF a cassette

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by scyule View Post
    a bunch of spacers on the freehu first and then HALF a cassette
    Yes, but then you have a significant reduction in available gears.

  9. #9
    nothing to see here
    Reputation: Stevob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,085
    Aren't the shifting glide ramps on cassettes directional?
    I see hills.

    I want to climb them.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: masterofnone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevob View Post
    Aren't the shifting glide ramps on cassettes directional?
    Good point. I could be wrong but I would think your shifting would turn to sheet.

  11. #11
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    Just pondering fatbike chainline issues out loud...Inverted Cassette for Fatbikes? | ridingagainstthegrain
    Would it even be possible because the freehub splines only allow the cassette to fit in one position, and not flippable as well?
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    857
    It would obviously take a custom cassette and derailleur.

  13. #13
    Smash Mode: ON
    Reputation: Dustin Mustangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    296
    ...
    Whatever floats your bike, dude

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    857
    Start at the first post.

    Tire clearance.

  15. #15
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,530
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    No thanks.
    Agreed

    Gearbox combined with geared hub? Or even just a proper geared hub with an actual granny...heck I'm looking at mounting a 38t to go with my 20t front ring

    I like all the ideas, fat bikes have really brought out the inventors. Fun to think about at least
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  16. #16
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Drevil View Post
    Would it even be possible because the freehub splines only allow the cassette to fit in one position, and not flippable as well?
    Loose cogs, just stack them in reverse order. The shift ramps will not work but it will shift and not skip under power.

    Plus I do have a box full of twist tooth cogs.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,776
    There's going to be some interesting developments coming out of the need to get a good gear range on fatbikes. I prefer hubgears, but many people don't like all the weight of the system concentrated in the back wheel.

    Perhaps a moveable rear block would help - like the TriVelox of old - which combined with something like a Schlumpf up front could give quite a large range.

    Or a modernised version of the Cambiogear which had 16 gears in the front ring

    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    I like seeing people play with new and old ideas for bicycle transmission systems. I would probably run a Rholoff, if it didn't cost more than most of the bicycles I have owned. I think a 2x10 gear system works quite well nowadays, but they can get pretty expensive too, especially when you consider how quickly it wears. It would be nice if they made the cogs reversible, so you could rotate them, and get twice the mileage out of them.

    As far as inverting the rear cassette though:
    Would any current frames have room for a 32-36 tooth cog on the outside?
    What kind of rear derailleur would work backwards?
    Wouldn't the chain be angled pretty hard in the lowest and highest gears?
    I don't think that is a very good solution. Maybe the Hubs should be pushed out more, like maybe an offset 170mm hub. it would probably only take 10mm of offset to clear most any tire with a double front chainring. If you want triple and a Bud/Lou, maybe a little offset on the cranks too.

  19. #19
    Vagician
    Reputation: EPcycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    293
    I guess that I don't really see any real current problems and an inverted cassette seems like a terrible idea (chain stay clearance?). Inverting the cassette only complicates something that already works quite well.

    I ride with a guy that uses BFL's on 100's 2x10 with no problems. I run 1x9 with plenty of room.

    Simpler is better IMO. The last thing that I want to do is add more moving parts which costs more money and creates more places for mechanical failure.

  20. #20
    addicted to chunk
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,016
    Quote Originally Posted by EPcycles View Post
    I guess that I don't really see any real current problems and an inverted cassette seems like a terrible idea (chain stay clearance?). Inverting the cassette only complicates something that already works quite well.

    I ride with a guy that uses BFL's on 100's 2x10 with no problems. I run 1x9 with plenty of room.

    Simpler is better IMO. The last thing that I want to do is add more moving parts which costs more money and creates more places for mechanical failure.
    This ^
    Riding.....

  21. #21
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by EPcycles View Post
    I guess that I don't really see any real current problems and an inverted cassette seems like a terrible idea (chain stay clearance?). Inverting the cassette only complicates something that already works quite well.

    I ride with a guy that uses BFL's on 100's 2x10 with no problems. I run 1x9 with plenty of room.

    Simpler is better IMO. The last thing that I want to do is add more moving parts which costs more money and creates more places for mechanical failure.
    I started a few replies trying to say exactly this.

    IMO we are past the point of diminishing returns with gear spread and tire width. My current fatty has 100mm rims with a 27x36 low and 14x40 high gear. If I'm going slower than the low gear... I'm walking. Faster than the high gear... I'm probably scared on a fatty.
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •