Which Do You Think Is The Better Design?

[JT!]

Which really is the better design?

When I weigh up all the pro and cons, i can't decide which would be better. It's 'having a tensioner' vs 'having a wheel that's not easy to align/set up'. It's 'having a lightweight setup' vs 'a fixed positioned wheel'.

I can't decide. I feel it might be one of these things where the grass is greener on the other side, because i've never used horizontal dropouts and they seem to be the way forward, because of all the faffing about i'm having with chain tension and wheel alignment etc makes them seem heavenly. But now HoD is using horizontal dropouts on their stock frames. So maybe stock riders are just as pissed of with their system as i am - I'd be getting pissed of if I kept hitting my tensioner on things and bending mech hangers.

I've put 360 and Vertical in the same poll choice because they're basically the same thing - fixed wheel position.

Please keep all the 'spacing' and 'vertical dropouts on a stock' stuff here.

So please have a good think, and vote away. Please don't just think "verticle dropouts are better becuase i ride stock" and visa versa.

Edited August 9, 2006 by JT!

[Phatmike]

What about eccentric 360?

One I designed to incorperate use of a king fun bolt:

Obviously there'd be pinch bolt clamps attatched. And there's a hanger should you ever need a comp legal bike.

I dig it.

[Matt_Tupman]

Mike!! Deng will rape your idea all over his bikes now!!!

Got to say though if done well your idea would be the best of both worlds, get on the phone to Aran if you havent already

[Heatsink]

I've not got any experience with horizontal drop outs, but from my standpoint I'd prefer to stick with vertical drop outs for any stock frames:

• No need to set up your brake & chain tension at the same time since with the wheel moveable both are affected simultaneously. Surely this must be a pain?
• I'm coming around to prefering a sprung tensioning system and am not concerned about the small amount of additional weight (approx 100g) on a non rotating part, or the vulnerability to bashing.
• Familiarity with vertical drop out set-up and confidence in this.
• It must be easier to have a small element that needs positioning to set tension (e.g. rigid tensioner), or no element that needs positioning in the case of a sprung tensioner, rather than a bulky wheel.

So basically with the vertical drop outs and say a sprung tensioner, tensioning and brake set-up is a cinch. I may be wrong about this, but I'm guessing that with a horizontal dropout tensioning and brake set-up is more fiddly and time-consuming. For me the benefits that the horizontal dropouts supposedly bring (weight saving of not needing a tensioning arm, no tensioner to bash) aren't compelling enough.

But then I would say that because I am supposedly bringing out a tensioner some day!

Steve

[TrashZen]

I've not got any experience with horizontal drop outs, but from my standpoint I'd prefer to stick with vertical drop outs for any stock frames:

• No need to set up your brake & chain tension at the same time since with the wheel moveable both are affected simultaneously. Surely this must be a pain?
• I'm coming around to prefering a sprung tensioning system and am not concerned about the small amount of additional weight (approx 100g) on a non rotating part, or the vulnerability to bashing.
• Familiarity with vertical drop out set-up and confidence in this.
• It must be easier to have a small element that needs positioning to set tension (e.g. rigid tensioner), or no element that needs positioning in the case of a sprung tensioner, rather than a bulky wheel.

So basically with the vertical drop outs and say a sprung tensioner, tensioning and brake set-up is a cinch. I may be wrong about this, but I'm guessing that with a horizontal dropout tensioning and brake set-up is more fiddly and time-consuming. For me the benefits that the horizontal dropouts supposedly bring (weight saving of not needing a tensioning arm, no tensioner to bash) aren't compelling enough.

But then I would say that because I am supposedly bringing out a tensioner some day!

Steve

Totally agree

I think the best solution is around innovative chain tensioner designs (something that could be clamped directly on the frame chain stay rather than bolted to a mech hanger), positionned on the inside of the frame, hence, nearly completely protected except if you do grinds on your chainstays

Maybe some room for new products there Steve?

[PaRtZ]

• No need to set up your brake & chain tension at the same time since with the wheel moveable both are affected simultaneously. Surely this must be a pain? Very true

• I'm coming around to prefering a sprung tensioning system and am not concerned about the small amount of additional weight (approx 100g) on a non rotating part, or the vulnerability to bashing. I personally don't agree, the amount of times i would have landed on a tensioner now.....

• Familiarity with vertical drop out set-up and confidence in this. bah im not

• It must be easier to have a small element that needs positioning to set tension (e.g. rigid tensioner), or no element that needs positioning in the case of a sprung tensioner, rather than a bulky wheel. also very true

Vertical dropouts seem easier to set up etc, but I just wouldn't do it puirely cos of mech hangars

[Greetings]

I'd rather have horizontal dropouts and go through the procedure of setting up the wheel once every month than having a chain tensioner which will weigh more and get in the way.

[Brian Bleech]

360 all the way, plus the leeson tensioner is so small and out the way anyhow!

although mikes dropout design looks swish and could work very well

[Walleee]

Do people seriously let their chains get so slack that when they tighten them they have to re-adjust their brakes?

My chain can be as loose as can to remain on the cog's and still not affect my brake set up when I tighten it up.

I like horizontal, because my new snail cams havn't come loose since fitting them. I

It may be a differant kettle of fish on a stock, because the wheels are bigger, perhaps a shift back on the drive side would result on more movement at the rim itself, but still it's just a case of knowing what your doing and thinking about what you want.

[Mark W]

Do people seriously let their chains get so slack that when they tighten them they have to re-adjust their brakes?

My chain can be as loose as can to remain on the cog's and still not affect my brake set up when I tighten it up.

Same here. If you just pull the wheel straight back you're good to go. However, once you've done it it's done anyway, so you're good to go. I just prefer horizontal dropouts, really. They work well on both my BMX and my mod, so it's all good, really.

I'd be surprised if that the eccentric 360 dropout thing worked, just in the same way that the Eno eccentric hub slips. I still don't think that a little pinch bolt is enough to hold all your weight, the power from whatever move you're doing and so on, not to mention that 'cos you're pinching the dropout in, it won't be contacting all the way round so it won't have pressure applied all around the axle/360innards, meaning it's even more likely to slip?

[Tom Booth]

Have'nt leeson come up with an 'ecenteric' bb? Sure I saw it on there site....

[Walleee]

Have'nt leeson come up with an 'ecenteric' bb? Sure I saw it on there site....

Yes.

Duno how you'd manage to take the wheel off without taking a crank off or splitting a link as the BB there seems to be towards the back .

I wonder does that even work? In the same way mark was talking about the dropout's, all the force is going directly to the bb there, at it's tightest, (pointing forwards) it's also at it's 'weakest' point.

when facing forwards, the screw is going to have to hold those cups in place.

No doubt clive's got it covered, but horizontal dropout's are the way forward imo....

[Mark W]

When Mike put up the designs for the eccentric BB for his frame, I said the same thing. The force is going to be even more substantial though 'cos the cranks are acting as long levers that you're putting all your weight and force through. I really, really can't see it working, but who knows. I can't imagine Clive would release it if it was a sack of poop, but like you said - that's going to be a lot more hassle to take the wheel off or whatever, which is kinda against the point of removing the tensioner aspect of the design 'n' so on?

[poopipe]

Another vote for horizontal here - mostly because there's no tensionery hangery thing to go wrong or get snagged on stuff etc.

The only disadvantage with horizontal dropouts is that it's a bit trickier to get your wheel lined up when putting it in but that's really just a case of getting used to it and letting the tensioners to do the work for you. It takes about 3 tries to figure out the easy way.

I do like the eccentric ideas - the BB is probably the best of the lot because you'd get more range of movement than with the eccentric dropouts - plus a bag load more reinforcement from the BB shell than you get from the weeny dropout shell.

That said though - the eccentric dropout thing is probably marketable - they'd be relatively cheap and assuming they held the wheel ok should mean that a lot of leeson owners could ditch their dirty mechs.

Is the slot purely because you designed it for fun bolts? I thought they usually just had a hole in - which you could offset.

[Phatmike]

Is the slot purely because you designed it for fun bolts? I thought they usually just had a hole in - which you could offset.

Certainly is, the thread of the bolt is 11.5mm in diameter, where the dropoutybit is 10mm, so it wouldn't be right.

Remember the most amount of movement you're ever going to need is the length of 1 part of the chain (1/2 a full link), so a massive amount of movement isn't needed

Mike

[poopipe]

Certainly is, the thread of the bolt is 11.5mm in diameter, where the dropoutybit is 10mm, so it wouldn't be right.

Remember the most amount of movement you're ever going to need is the length of 1 part of the chain (1/2 a full link), so a massive amount of movement isn't needed

Mike

good point.

I'd steal your idea and make some money if I had any of the tools or knowledge required to make such things.

[Todge]

Remember the most amount of movement you're ever going to need is the length of 1 part of the chain (1/2 a full link), so a massive amount of movement isn't needed

There is probably more movement needed then you think, especially with the smaller 16tooth sprockets up front.

Another point with this eccentric dropout melarky is that is will f**k up all your geometry, chainstay length, bb rise etc.

[Phatmike]

There is probably more movement needed then you think, especially with the smaller 16tooth sprockets up front.

My theory is that if each 1/2 link is ~13mm, then if the wheel/bb moves forward/back by that amount, then it's tensioning both the upper and lower part of the chain, so just 13mm of movement will equal one full link. If more or less is required, then you'll be able to simply add/remove a link, depending on the gearing?

Think thats right anyways.

Mike.

[poopipe]

It will mess with the geometry but that's not necessarily a bad thing - for example, my bmx gives me an inch or so of variation so I can tune my effective chainstay length to suit me. You'd get roughly that much adjustment using this system although there would be an effect on BB height as well - if my maths are right it'd be fairly small compared to the effect on chainstay length so probably wouldn't affect the ride greatly.

Todge has a point in that some people's gearing might make life difficult but then again the same problems aren't unknown on bikes with horizontal dropouts so you probably wouldn't be any worse off.

I definitely think Mike's onto something here

[Brian Bleech]

When Mike put up the designs for the eccentric BB for his frame, I said the same thing. The force is going to be even more substantial though 'cos the cranks are acting as long levers that you're putting all your weight and force through. I really, really can't see it working, but who knows. I can't imagine Clive would release it if it was a sack of poop, but like you said - that's going to be a lot more hassle to take the wheel off or whatever, which is kinda against the point of removing the tensioner aspect of the design 'n' so on?

If you made the dropout and insert a octagon shape or similar, that would help to stop it moving. But it would make it harder to set up and you wouldn't be be able to fine tune the tension as much, although it would probably be able to get as near as damn though.

[Tom Booth]

If you made the dropout and insert a octagon shape or similar, that would help to stop it moving. But it would make it harder to set up and you wouldn't be be able to fine tune the tension as much, although it would probably be able to get as near as damn though.

Or ISIS splined?

[bob87]

I know it sounds like a retarded idea but a sliding bottom bracket would be an idea.

Don't know how it would work.

Maybe have a ovalised bottom bracket shell so that the BB can slide back and forth.

With 2-4 bolts either side to push it back or forward.

If it was made the frame would probably be to week but if it were made I'm sure there could be some sort of heavy duty gusseting put on.

Like i said just an idea i had instead of Chain tensioners or Eccentric BB or hubs.

[JT!]

Haha, so nearly exactly 50:50.

[Phatmike]

What about eccentric 360?

One I designed to incorperate use of a king fun bolt:

Obviously there'd be pinch bolt clamps attatched. And there's a hanger should you ever need a comp legal bike.

I dig it.

[JT!]

What advantages would that have over horizontal dropouts though?