Manufacturers.......this Is What We Want!

[Mark W]

companies could even make a v brake were the mounts are at the top of the brake instead of the bottom so the pads are lower I'm full of ideas tonight

You'd pretty much have to totally re-invent the V-brake to make that work properly. If the pads are below the pivot, you need to totally change how the brake works.

[JT!]

Right...

No one's saying the idea is bad. But unfortunately the idea is the only good thing. Making an adapter to allow brakes to be ran on a 20" rear wheel frame with a 19" rear wheel is a tiny market. You've got to take all the people who have bought a rip (and any other 20" rear wheeled bike) then minus all the people that would not buy the adapter, these would be people who'd buy a new frame, or buy a new bike, or just stick with the 20" wheel or the people who've just given up on trials. And then of course people will be put off because they'll be stuck with a vee even if they spend a few pounds on an adapter as opposed to people who'll upgrade to a disc / maggie in the long run.

Unfortunately the target market would be so small they'd never make a profit from the money spent designing and testing it - unless they sold it for a very steep price.

[Mark W]

What JT said

Which is what I said before.

For what it's worth, the first 2 1/2 years I rode was on an old 2000 Onza T-Bird which had a 20" rear wheel. Wasn't amazing, but was still good to learn the basics on.

[JT!]

But talking about chains and cogs. Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a chain with links half the length, so that you could run it with regular stuff too - the links would just miss a tooth alliteratively.

Which is what I said before.

Sorry didn't read the thread fully. But I think he's someone who needs to be told stuff twice.

[Mark W]

What JT said again

Wasn't calling you out for it

RE: Chain length thing, you couldn't do a chain with a pitch half the length of the sprocket/freewheel as it wouldn't physically work.

[tryallmaster]

That just made me think of a brake pad material all the way round the rim with a ground metal brake pad!

Far more complicated... Le is the man to explain thoroughly. These rims are just pure madness but EXPENSIVE to produce!

[Rich J]

I dont really understand why you would want to go 20 to 19 to start with, can still run the same hub, just not rims, cant be a massive weight difference and if thats the issue then i doubt you would have bought such a bike. But as mentioned it is possible with DMRs set up or additionally and multi positional mounts where by the pins screw into the frame in different holes dependant on the wheel size. But how a hole over an inch would work strength wise is beyond me, dont think it would add much to manufacturing mind but again, I dont know.

Im not looking to pick a fight by the way, it is my bed time.

[Matt Vandart]

can't help but think of that when people say "alot" now lol

But yeah, Mark hit the nail on the head, smaller pitched teeth and chain would be the biggest win in the history of riding (well, almost). I'll be having words with a bike company about that I thinks.

That was very funny.

On the smaller pitched teeth bit, please explain the win factors.

[Luke Rainbird]

More fine tuning for ratios.

Hardly gonna be a bad thing in that respect, provided chains can be made strong enough which shouldn't be tooooo much of an issue

[Matt Vandart]

I'm sorry I must be in thick mode today, exactly how can they be more finely tuned?

I can understand the opportunity to fine tune the chain length but not gear ratios.

[Greetings]

Yeah, there combinations are endless. Just as an example, the amount of ratios between 18:16 and 18:15 sorted from lightest to heaviest:

18 16

17 15

16 14

22 19

20 17

18 15

Why would you want more?

[Ali C]

when is more choice a bad thing?

Lets say you can make a cog the same size as 18t but it could have twice as many teeth with 36t, you could fine tune it a few teeth at a time with only a small difference in how hard it feels, this means you can make the gear EXACTLY how you want it to feel, but also use it to make your chain tension (and chainstay length) shortened/lengthened in really small increments, no more crap heavy tensioners for vertical dropouts, no more pads not hitting rims properly and fine tuned chainstay lengths on horizontal dropouts. Oh, and stronger chains....win in every possible way.

[Ryan Trott]

.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Ryan Trott

[Scott Gibbs]

I like the sound of micro pitch chain and sprockets the strenght issue im asssuming could be sorted by widening the chain and teeth am i correct??

Also prehaps a trials specific version of the 240 ep profile hub. I'd love to see hope have a crack at that!

[Ali C]

I cant see there being any strength issues, the chain links are shorter, shorter = stronger (a wider chain on its own doesn't mean stronger) and smaller teeth wont matter as the load will be carried over a lot more teeth than on a standard pitch setup therefore spreading the load.

[Matt Vandart]

Ok, I am getting the gearing thing but not the strength thing, why does shorter links = more strength?

[Ali C]

I guess it can go both ways, shorter lengths of metal stretch less and will generally be stronger, but there will be more pins to break, but I havn't had a chain come apart at the pin for years plus the shorter stiffer links would be harder to splay apart for the pin to come out anyway.

[eskimo]

Plus when it's wrapped around a small cog it's even more stressful, hence why bmx is looking at it closer.

Anyway so far we've come up with zero new ideas (since the last similar topic)

It's cool some companies are trying to sway away from snail cams now. All the ones i've ever used wear too easy, including 7075 ones...

pshhhhhh steel

Edited December 29, 2010 by eskimo

[MK999]

Why would you want more?

Well, now count all the different ratios between 18/15 and 18/16 while keep the same, expensive, FFW. Now count all the people that might wanna experiment with 6 FFW's before they find what works for their bike/them

[Matt Vandart]

I guess it can go both ways, shorter lengths of metal stretch less and will generally be stronger, but there will be more pins to break, but I havn't had a chain come apart at the pin for years plus the shorter stiffer links would be harder to splay apart for the pin to come out anyway.

I'm getting this bit but don't believe the other bit is correct.

[Greetings]

the chain links are shorter, shorter = stronger (a wider chain on its own doesn't mean stronger)

And there's double the amount, probably meaning a chain like that would be at least 50% heavier. The idea is pretty nice but I can't imagine how anyone would ever have a problem with finding the right gear ratio using a freehub. As posted above, if 18:16 is too light and 18:15 is too heavy, you still have at least 4 gears inbetween. Surely you don't need more than that.

[Ali C]

what are these 4 gears you are talking about?

[JohnyMilton]

I'd love love a longer frame(something about 1080mm wb and +30bb rise) with a saddle...I hate the pogo stick look!

Edited December 29, 2010 by JohnyMilton

[casualjoe]

If a certain company could make a slightly smaller pitch chain and sprocket so that 18:15 gearing would = 380mm stays, I would be very interested

How about a spring loaded BB that you could load up with massive tension by pedalling backwards a few times till you hear a loud 'click' and then release the tension (with maybe a button on the handlebar) causing your pedal kick to be massively amplified sending the bike and rider into the atmosphere

[konstant]

till you hear a loud 'click' and then release the tension (with maybe a button on the handlebar) causing your pedal kick to be massively amplified sending the bike and rider into the atmosphere

That would be LETHAL

I'd most like to see a way of attaching freewheels to cranks that allowed them to be removed/reinstalled with less tears and swearing.

Edited December 29, 2010 by konstant