Rapid rise (to obscurity)?

Paul B said:

My sense of mechanics rightly or wrongly tells me that more effort is
required to derail a chain onto a larger ring either front or rear.
Therefore a conventionally sprung rear mech seems right on paper (it allows
one to "feel" the changeover onto a larger sprocket or slightly overshoot if
required). However, I'm yet to try a rapid rise rear mech. Does anyone
prefer them or state that they work better?

I don't. I think they are [censored]. I had one - it lasted a week before
starting to malfunction in my normal commuting environment which is not
hard on bikes. The SRAM one I replaced it with did much better, but the
best was a conventional XT which is behaving very nicely.

Quoted message said:

at
least they haven't gone for electomechanical shifting like Mavic played
with - well not yet anyway & hopefully never IMO.

Not true IMSAC. I think they are playing with it on the road but it is
much better than the mavic one.

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul B ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

My sense of mechanics rightly or wrongly tells me that more effort is
required to derail a chain onto a larger ring either front or rear.
Therefore a conventionally sprung rear mech seems right on paper (it
allows one to "feel" the changeover onto a larger sprocket or slightly
overshoot if required). However, I'm yet to try a rapid rise rear mech.
Does anyone prefer them or state that they work better?

One plausible explanation was that Shimano wanted to make both controls
consistent but a shop mechanic opined that wasn't likely. So why did
Shimano fix something if it wasn't broke?

Shimano XTR cassettes had a habit of folding up when the derailleur was
shifted with the force of a thumb behind it. By shifting to larger
sprockets with only the power of a (known) spring, Shimano know exactly
how much lateral force the sprockets have to be able to cope with. This
makes it possible for Shimano to design and use lighter sprockets (242
grammes for XTR 11-34 nine speed vs the SRAM equivalent PG 990 at 295
grammes).

Quoted message said:

Shimano do seem to either get
stuff wrong such as BioPace or just quietly drop stuff like pawl-less
rear axles but at least they haven't gone for electomechanical shifting
like Mavic played with - well not yet anyway & hopefully never IMO.

My personal bet is that all the groupsets will got to electromechanical
shifting sooner or later - and will be the better for it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.

Thus spake David Martin:

Quoted message said:

Paul B said:

My sense of mechanics rightly or wrongly tells me that more effort is
required to derail a chain onto a larger ring either front or rear.
Therefore a conventionally sprung rear mech seems right on paper (it
allows one to "feel" the changeover onto a larger sprocket or
slightly overshoot if required). However, I'm yet to try a rapid
rise rear mech. Does anyone prefer them or state that they work
better?

I don't. I think they are [censored]. I had one - it lasted a week before
starting to malfunction in my normal commuting environment which is
not hard on bikes. The SRAM one I replaced it with did much better,
but the best was a conventional XT which is behaving very nicely.

LOL! I was trying to be diplomatic - [censored] on paper & brown in practice then!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

least they haven't gone for electomechanical shifting like Mavic
played with - well not yet anyway & hopefully never IMO.

Not true IMSAC. I think they are playing with it on the road but it is
much better than the mavic one.

Cycling is my final refuge from my work - electronics! Maybe I'm
old(fashioned) but having something that is purely mechanical is rather
sexy. This naturally excludes lights & their flashing/charging/brightness
regulating circuitry, computers & the mobile in my pocket, etc.

--
Basically, I hate people who preface nearly every sentence with the word
'basically'!

Paul B said:

My sense of mechanics rightly or wrongly tells me that more effort is
required to derail a chain onto a larger ring either front or rear.
Therefore a conventionally sprung rear mech seems right on paper (it allows
one to "feel" the changeover onto a larger sprocket or slightly overshoot if
required). However, I'm yet to try a rapid rise rear mech. Does anyone
prefer them or state that they work better?

I used a bike with a rapid rise shifter for a couple of years. I didn't
find the shifting to be much better or worse than standard shifters.
What was a pain in the [censored] was having 2 bikes with different types of
shifters. I usually took a few shifts to adjust between bikes.
I'm now back to standard shifters on all my bikes. I don't miss the
rapid rise at all.

Iain

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul B ([email hidden]'😉
wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shimano do seem to either get
stuff wrong such as BioPace or just quietly drop stuff like pawl-less
rear axles but at least they haven't gone for electomechanical shifting
like Mavic played with - well not yet anyway & hopefully never IMO.

My personal bet is that all the groupsets will got to electromechanical
shifting sooner or later - and will be the better for it.

<snip>

Ummm...., certainly the high end stuff will head that way.
But better? IMO, maybe, eventually...
It all has the distinct odour of a solution in search of a problem
about it.

Downsides are fairly straightforward:
Cost (initally)
reliability (initally)
batteries (presumably),
less easy to diagnose/fix/bodge on the road (unless they put an
override "get you home" lock on the ders., telling them to ignore
signals and stay in middle/middle or whatever)

What's the upside to electro-mechanical for the rider?
No cables (assuming wireless),
Indexing is in the der. rather than the lever, so less likely to go out
of whack?
Bling Bling Bling Bling Bling!

Anything else?

bookieb

bookieb said:

What's the upside to electro-mechanical for the rider?
No cables (assuming wireless),

How long before the wireless gets hacked and individual derailleurs can
be targetted from the road side? Watch the sprint finishes where
suddenly Boonen finds himself unable to get out of the granny gear..

...d

in message <[email hidden]>,

bookieb (') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul B
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shimano do seem to either get
stuff wrong such as BioPace or just quietly drop stuff like
pawl-less rear axles but at least they haven't gone for
electomechanical shifting like Mavic played with - well not yet
anyway & hopefully never IMO.

My personal bet is that all the groupsets will got to
electromechanical shifting sooner or later - and will be the better
for it.

<snip>

Ummm...., certainly the high end stuff will head that way.
But better? IMO, maybe, eventually...
It all has the distinct odour of a solution in search of a problem
about it.

Downsides are fairly straightforward:
Cost (initally)
reliability (initally)
batteries (presumably),

No, UCI rules forbid the use of battery powered shifting AIUI. The Mavic
system generated its own power from the chain, and so I assume will the
new Campag one.

Quoted message said:

less easy to diagnose/fix/bodge on the road (unless they put an
override "get you home" lock on the ders., telling them to ignore
signals and stay in middle/middle or whatever)

What's the upside to electro-mechanical for the rider?
No cables (assuming wireless),

Even if there are wires, cable tension and cable routing ceases to be an
issue, which means the mechs don't drift out of alignment as the cables
stretch. Which means more precise, accurate shifting with less
maintenance.

Quoted message said:

Indexing is in the der. rather than the lever, so less likely to go out
of whack?

Absolutely.

Quoted message said:

Bling Bling Bling Bling Bling!

Easier to fold folding bikes. Easier to dismantle conventional bikes.
Easier to set up a new derailleur, or to change a damaged one.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Do not sail on uphill water.
- Bill Lee

bookieb said:

What's the upside to electro-mechanical for the rider?
No cables (assuming wireless),
Indexing is in the der. rather than the lever, so less likely to go out
of whack?
Bling Bling Bling Bling Bling!

Anything else?

A potentially decent way of marrying a Rohloff hub with drop bars?

MikeF

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

bookieb (') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul B
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

<snip>
batteries (presumably),

No, UCI rules forbid the use of battery powered shifting AIUI. The Mavic
system generated its own power from the chain, and so I assume will the
new Campag one.

Even if the ders. do "power" themselves from the chain, either the
shifters need batteries to send the signal, or they need to be wired
back to the ders. If wired, we lose some of the advantages you mention
below (swapping out der, better for folders), though it still
simplifies cable routing.

I think I read about/saw pictures of a high end Shimano prototype on
test somwhere or other.
Anyone else remember that, or have the old marbles come adrift again?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's the upside to electro-mechanical for the rider?
No cables (assuming wireless),

Even if there are wires, cable tension and cable routing ceases to be an
issue, which means the mechs don't drift out of alignment as the cables
stretch. Which means more precise, accurate shifting with less
maintenance.

Quoted message said:

Indexing is in the der. rather than the lever, so less likely to go out
of whack?

Absolutely.

Quoted message said:

Bling Bling Bling Bling Bling!

Easier to fold folding bikes. Easier to dismantle conventional bikes.

Yeah, fairy 'nuff, good point re folders in particular.

Quoted message said:

Easier to set up a new derailleur, or to change a damaged one.

<snip>

If wireless though, the shifters will have to be matched to the ders.
to prevent different bikes shifting each other. If wired, the wire
needs to be re-terminated on the new der (or vice versa), we're pretty
much back where we started (maybe still easier to set up the electro.
unit?)

....mind you, I'm a Luddite caveman, still running DT shifters (all be
it indexed 10s. DT levers).
Electro-mechanical, bah! Back in my day sonny, if you wanted a
different gear, you changed to a different "ordinary" with a smaller
wheel. Humbug I say, don't come running to me when your solenoid
doo-dah breaks both your legs. It'll all end it tears I tell ya...
(wanders off into distance, muttering to self).

bookieb.

bookieb said:

If wireless though, the shifters will have to be matched to the ders.
to prevent different bikes shifting each other. If wired, the wire
needs to be re-terminated on the new der (or vice versa), we're pretty
much back where we started (maybe still easier to set up the electro.
unit?)

Should be easier. The wire need only clip in to get electrical connection,
not get a mechanical grip.

A

David Martin said:

bookieb said:

What's the upside to electro-mechanical for the rider? No cables
(assuming wireless),

How long before the wireless gets hacked and individual derailleurs can
be targetted from the road side? Watch the sprint finishes where
suddenly Boonen finds himself unable to get out of the granny gear..

Gearjacked! Get yourself a nice big Yagi antenna and you could take out
the whole Tour from a mile off ...

Many years ago, there was a story about the introduction of voice-operated
shifters, science fiction really, which was either in a UK MTBing magazine
or circulating on the ARPAnet or whatever, with a similar denouement - a
few dozen metres from the finish line, the anti-hero wraps his chewing gum
round his mike, and shouts "DOWN DOWN DOWN!" loud enough for the other
riders' gears to hear him ...

tom

--
There is a faster way to find out...

Ambrose Nankivell said:

bookieb said:

If wireless though, the shifters will have to be matched to the ders.
to prevent different bikes shifting each other.

Fun could be had "hacking" a race with a suitably placed transmitter :-).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If wired, the wire
needs to be re-terminated on the new der (or vice versa), we're
pretty much back where we started (maybe still easier to set up the
electro. unit?)

Should be easier. The wire need only clip in to get electrical
connection, not get a mechanical grip.

Though, to save the weight of the insulation, we could run the wire under
tension from the control unit, via some tubes to the down-tube, then via
plastic brackets and guides to the mechanisms. To ensure the wire didn't
break it could be multistranded. And to make sure it doesn't short against
the frame it would be under tension, requiring a spring in the mechanism to
maintain the tension.

Electrical return path via the frame would instantly render carbon fibre
frames redundant, requiring replacement with new "carbon fibre with extra
wires" frames.

To work the mechanism, it will need power. To save the weight of batteries,
bikes will need a hub mounted power generator. As a consequence of the
demand for hubs, Schmidt Maschinenbau will purchase the bankrupt remains of
both Shimano and Campagnolo.

I'm sure it will happen as the parts makers need new ideas to sell new bits
to people. Now there are 10 cogs on the back, I'm not sure the constant rise
in number of sprockets is worth pursuing further. Electronic control has a
nice ring to it (add in WiFi, Digital and a few other techno buzz words of
choice).

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Nigel Cliffe said:

Electrical return path via the frame would instantly render carbon
fibre frames redundant, requiring replacement with new "carbon fibre
with extra wires" frames.

Carbon is *very* conductive and would provide an excellent return
path. It'd also provide a lot of screening against eavesdropping and
deliberate jamming if the signal cables were run inside it.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

Tom Anderson wrote on 20/06/2006 22:19 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Many years ago, there was a story about the introduction of
voice-operated shifters, science fiction really, which was either in a
UK MTBing magazine or circulating on the ARPAnet or whatever, with a
similar denouement - a few dozen metres from the finish line, the
anti-hero wraps his chewing gum round his mike, and shouts "DOWN DOWN
DOWN!" loud enough for the other riders' gears to hear him ...

Reminds me of a demo of a voice operated computer some years ago.
Presenters all ready to launch into their demo when out of the audience
boomed a loud voice with "Format C....Yes" Fortunately the system
wasn't that good but it caused great consternation on the platform and
great mirth in the audience.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:49:28 +0100,

Chris Eilbeck said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Electrical return path via the frame would instantly render carbon
fibre frames redundant, requiring replacement with new "carbon fibre
with extra wires" frames.

Carbon is *very* conductive and would provide an excellent return
path. It'd also provide a lot of screening against eavesdropping and
deliberate jamming if the signal cables were run inside it.

Diamond is a semiconductor. Graphite is a good conductor. IIRC defect
free graphite is only a good conductor parallel to the planes, not
across them. I've no idea where C60 and all that jazz fits in.

(I've also got no idea whether carbon fiber is a good or bad conductor)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

in message <[email hidden]>, Tim

Woodall (') said:

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:49:28 +0100,

Chris Eilbeck said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Electrical return path via the frame would instantly render carbon
fibre frames redundant, requiring replacement with new "carbon fibre
with extra wires" frames.

Carbon is *very* conductive and would provide an excellent return
path. It'd also provide a lot of screening against eavesdropping and
deliberate jamming if the signal cables were run inside it.

Diamond is a semiconductor. Graphite is a good conductor. IIRC defect
free graphite is only a good conductor parallel to the planes, not
across them. I've no idea where C60 and all that jazz fits in.

(I've also got no idea whether carbon fiber is a good or bad conductor)

Doesn't really matter, since it's trivial to bond actual wires into the
layup. A little multi-pin connector on the head tube, a two-pin one on
the drive-side chainstay for the derailleur, another two pin one on the
non drive side for the cadence pickup or a four pin one for both cadence
and speed pickups. Or, indeed, the pickups two could be bonded in as
part of the frame.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

Tim Woodall said:

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:49:28 +0100,

Chris Eilbeck said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Electrical return path via the frame would instantly render carbon
fibre frames redundant, requiring replacement with new "carbon fibre
with extra wires" frames.

Carbon is *very* conductive and would provide an excellent return
path. It'd also provide a lot of screening against eavesdropping and
deliberate jamming if the signal cables were run inside it.

Diamond is a semiconductor. Graphite is a good conductor. IIRC defect
free graphite is only a good conductor parallel to the planes, not
across them. I've no idea where C60 and all that jazz fits in.

(I've also got no idea whether carbon fiber is a good or bad conductor)

It depends on the lay-up and the epoxy content but IME, it's very
conductive and provides excellent RF screening (which sometimes isn't
what you want 😉

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck
MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/
UKRA #1108 Level 2 UYB
Tripoli UK Member #9527 LSMR

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris Eilbeck

() said:

It depends on the lay-up and the epoxy content but IME, it's very
conductive and provides excellent RF screening (which sometimes isn't
what you want 😉

Indeed. Attempts to provide radio communications 'twixt rider and chase
vehicle during HPV record runs have invariably proved futile.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
und keine Eie.

Dave Larrington said:

Attempts to provide radio communications 'twixt rider and
chase vehicle during HPV record runs have invariably proved futile.

What would they find to talk about?

"Faster! Faster!"
"Ungghrr."