|
-
Has anyone thought about an Inverted Cassette for fatbikes?
-
 Originally Posted by lawfarm
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
-
 Originally Posted by shiggy
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.
-
Or you could simply run a hubgear and get rid of derailleurs altogether.
As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland
-
 Originally Posted by lawfarm
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
-
 Originally Posted by Velobike
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
-
PSYCHOLUST
Reputation:
a bunch of spacers on the freehu first and then HALF a cassette
-
 Originally Posted by scyule
a bunch of spacers on the freehu first and then HALF a cassette
Yes, but then you have a significant reduction in available gears.
-
Aren't the shifting glide ramps on cassettes directional?
I see hills.
I want to climb them.
-
 Originally Posted by Stevob
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.
-
 Originally Posted by lawfarm
Would it even be possible because the freehub splines only allow the cassette to fit in one position, and not flippable as well?
-
It would obviously take a custom cassette and derailleur.
-
Whatever floats your bike, dude
-
Start at the first post.
Tire clearance.
-
 Originally Posted by shiggy
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?
-
 Originally Posted by Drevil
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
-
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: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland
-
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.
-
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.
-
 Originally Posted by EPcycles
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 ^
"No one's interested in something you didn't do."
FREE BEER! (tomorrow)
-
 Originally Posted by EPcycles
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
-
Forum Rules
|