Nupace transmission- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Zubi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    53

    Nupace transmission, a new Rohloff?

    Does anyone know something about this internal hub? It looks very interesting, it is like a rohloff but with "infinite gears".

    Does anyone know how it works? will it be so strong as a Rohloff?

    http://www.nupace.com
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Zubi; 04-11-2005 at 08:03 AM.

  2. #2
    Cassoulet forever !
    Reputation: 20.100 FR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,260
    hum, very instersting !
    Continuous variation...
    pattent:
    http://tinyurl.com/67o38

    but
    $995.00
    2kg
    "The efficiency of the hubset varies linearly [with] the
    shift...1:1(low)95% to 1:4.35(high)85%"
    Last edited by 20.100 FR; 04-11-2005 at 02:05 PM.
    Frenchspeaking 29"ers community site http://VingtNeuf.org

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Zubi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    53
    Thank you 20.100 FR for the direction, I will try to understand the patent.

  4. #4
    Trail rider and racer
    Reputation: Trevor!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,691
    2Kg??? Shessh thats a bit heavy isnt it. I suspect a normal drive train would be a tad lighter.
    Trev!

  5. #5
    Cassoulet forever !
    Reputation: 20.100 FR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,260
    i think it's a rachet style CVT.
    Frenchspeaking 29"ers community site http://VingtNeuf.org

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,902
    Interesting differential ratchet mechanism, the patent shows 4 sets to get the 2.44:1 ratio (each set gets a maximum of ~1.25:1).

    If you roll backwards, the gearing reverses, and the pedals will turn faster (ie at top gear the pedals will turn 4.35 time faster than the wheel rolling backwards). It would be very neat to try out, but I'm not sure about the #1K price tag....

    Cheers,

    Tom

  7. #7

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    545
    No advantage over a Rohloff.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Zubi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by datako
    No advantage over a Rohloff.
    Greater number of gear ratios: As much as you want.

    Besides, I personally think that this system can evolve much more than a Rohloff, perhaps in future it will be lighter. But I agree with you that nowadays the rohloff is better.

  9. #9
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,176
    ..ooohhh, that looks very interesting.

    Imagine something like that incorporated into the frame instead of the rear hub.

    Could be the next big thing..


    R.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman
    ..ooohhh, that looks very interesting.

    Imagine something like that incorporated into the frame instead of the rear hub.

    Could be the next big thing.. .

    Indeed, the g-box standard is designed to allow exactly such internals to be adopted. Theoretically any rear transmission hub can have its internals mounted in a G-box, unless they are simply to large.

    I do see one advantage over the Rhollof. The Rhollof is least effcient in its lowest gears, and most effcient in the mid-high gears. The Nupace hub is most effcient in its lowest gear, and proggessively less effcient in highr ones. To me, that suggests the Nupace is more suited to trail riding, and the Rholoff more suited for road riding / downhill racing.

  11. #11
    Derailleurless
    Reputation: Speedub.Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Zubi
    Greater number of gear ratios: As much as you want.
    Narrow range, though -- approximately 300%. That's about equivalent to a single ring setup using an 11-34 cassette.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedub.Nate
    Narrow range, though -- approximately 300%. That's about equivalent to a single ring setup using an 11-34 cassette.
    A "mountain drive" or "speed drive" front crank would fix that, albiet at a pretty high cost, and would probably add yet more weight. Still, it would be pretty sweet...

  13. #13
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,176
    It would be good to see some new innovation in drivetrains and systems.

    I wish Rholoff had a better distro setup and were more widely available. Maybe that would spur quicker development in this type of geared drive systems.

    I really dislike deraileurs, i'm always banging mine against rocks.


    R.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman
    It would be good to see some new innovation in drivetrains and systems.

    I wish Rholoff had a better distro setup and were more widely available. Maybe that would spur quicker development in this type of geared drive systems.

    I really dislike deraileurs, i'm always banging mine against rocks.
    Rholoff is avaialble through QPB, which makes them ubiquitously available. They have to be special ordered, but almost any bike shop could get them.

  15. #15
    Derailleurless
    Reputation: Speedub.Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman
    I wish Rholoff had a better distro setup and were more widely available. Maybe that would spur quicker development in this type of geared drive systems.
    It seems your wish in the in process of being granted.

    They sold their first Speedhub in 1997 or early '98. From there, it took them until 2003 to produce 20,000 units (according to the history on their website). That's an average of 4,000 units per year.

    I don't recall when they reached the 30,000 mark, but they've since moved into a new facility (previously they were assemling these in a small shop in Mr. Rohloff's backyard) hit 40,000 this past winter and, if I understood their local rep correctly, are already nearing 50,000.

    Unfortunately, exchange rates are crap and prices aren't going to drop, but nevertheless their guy in Berkeley can't keep any inventory on his shelves, so there is definitely no lack of demand just yet.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LititzDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    536

    New Trans

    Parker Hanifin (SP?) ,that is holding an engineering contest to college students to see who can build a trans for a bicycle using hydraulics. Now this seems to be an interesting proposition, if they can get the correct ratio reduction. Most hydraulic systems use a high fluid velocity, and a high pressure head, lets see what the kids come up with.

    http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5041

  17. #17
    Cassoulet forever !
    Reputation: 20.100 FR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Fungazi
    Indeed, the g-box standard is designed to allow exactly such internals to be adopted. Theoretically any rear transmission hub can have its internals mounted in a G-box, unless they are simply to large.
    I spoke of this hub to Nicolai when i discovered it, and he told me he gonna try one, but no news back.
    Frenchspeaking 29"ers community site http://VingtNeuf.org

  18. #18
    Just Ride!
    Reputation: kustomz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman
    Imagine something like that incorporated into the frame instead of the rear hub.
    The hub body does appear to have about the same O.D. as a typical EBB shell. I think they would be onto something if they were to be able to incorporate a BB spindle and bearings into a shell housing that size. Just make all of the internals as a cartridge fit, so the shell could be welded in a jig just as an EBB shell, then slide the cartridge in from the right side and secure with left handed lock ring. Too cool........

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ultra Magnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,152
    Did you guys see this in the interbike coverage?

    http://www.fallbrooktech.com/02_Demo.asp


    Looks pretty cool to me...
    "I've come to believe that common sense is not that common" - Matt Timmerman

  20. #20

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by bmadau
    Did you guys see this in the interbike coverage?

    http://www.fallbrooktech.com/02_Demo.asp


    Looks pretty cool to me...
    Yeah, and it looks much less complicated then other designs, plus very robust (to my uneducated eyes). Wonder how much it weighs.

  21. #21
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Warthog
    Yeah, and it looks much less complicated then other designs, plus very robust (to my uneducated eyes). Wonder how much it weighs.
    Mmm. 400% range. Me wants 600%. Or at least 500%. Can be solved I guess with an extra simple two step planetary stage..

  22. #22
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedub.Nate
    Unfortunately, exchange rates are crap and prices aren't going to drop,
    And the answer is... Taiwan!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    416
    Nah Fallbrook looks nice but:

    where are you going tot get enough friction to keep from slipping?

    1: One hell of a big spring (heavier shifting, energy losses)

    2: traction fluid (very and I say VERY expensive)

    It works about the same as the toroid transmission (www.torotrak.com).

    It does not seem as a workable invention for cycling. Same goes for the nupace. Just to complicated for the weight needs in cycling. I still believe the derailleur is one of the most simple/weight/energy efficient systems that ever will be invented for cycling. Only the rohloff comes close.

  24. #24

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    313
    How hard would it be to get a wider gearing range by using a rear single speed tensioner and two or three rings up front?

    Front deraileurs are fine, it's the rear we all love to hate.

    I wouldn't mind a 400% hub with three or two rings up front.


    Riding in snow and mud has put me off on deraileurs, I hate when they don't work.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    49

    Bonking ... not feelin' well Low efficiency

    Quote Originally Posted by 20.100 FR
    "The efficiency of the hubset varies linearly [with] the
    shift...1:1(low)95% to 1:4.35(high)85%"
    That is not good enough. I don't want to waste any of the small power that I produce with my muscles.

Similar Threads

  1. New transmission and fork report
    By WadePatton in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-11-2005, 11:11 PM
  2. [Kinetic XPost] AWD transmission conversion...
    By Speedub.Nate in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-22-2004, 03:34 PM
  3. Help on Merida Transmission Elite
    By eastpeak in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-15-2004, 11:29 AM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-15-2004, 03:25 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.