A no go, or a yes go for this pulley (re)invention?

[wheelsONfire]

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... tts-45108/

Need to EDIT:
( Here you go )

http://www.ceramicspeed.com/sport/products/OSPW

[lrdunc]

Can't you shave your forearms and pluck your nose hairs to save 3 watts for a lot less coin?

[wheelsONfire]

Oh, that's done!

[prendrefeu]

Maybe a better, less vague, thread title please?

Having the current title of "It's great to see the madness never ends" and not actually writing anything (just linking) is sort of like spam even though you did not intend it that way. Why not be helpful to current and future forum members (and people searching on the internet) and write a thread title appropriate for the subject? Why not be curious about innovation and ideas and ask other members "is the science behind this true?" or "has anyone ridden something similar?" or "does this affect shifting?"... instead you're just being negative, not helpful, and not curious about things... if that's the case, why bother starting a thread at all? I might as well start a thread titled "blah blah blah opinion oh wow" and have it be about some kinda interesting innovation or concept, albeit expensive, that others may never know about because the thread title never indicated anything.

That said:
How is this madness? Seriously? It's expensive, sure, but is it beneficial? Absolutely - if that is a concern for you and for many people IT IS. Just because YOU may not care about those micro-watts doesn't mean others do not. Madness? To you, sure. That's what makes your thread title not helpful to others.

And anyway, yes, it is affective to have larger pulley wheels. It has been done and discussed on this forum before, and if you do some searching you'll see the maths and reasoning behind it. Specialist makers, such as Dark Albert (who I don't think produces anymore) were making cages to accommodate larger pulley wheels YEARS ago...

@lrdunc and @wheelsONfire
That sarcasm is humorous, but come on - modifications such as this are par-for-course here on WeightWeenies. You've both been around long enough you should know this by now. In fact it's more likely someone from WW would have made this on their own (for less), but now it's an actual product... so why the mockery for modification and performance enhancement? People here know and discuss the science and math behind things. People in the industry lurk our forums because they know it can be a place for innovation and learning the sciences behind things. Don't believe me? Stick around long enough and start talking casually to the designers and industry folks during trade shows, you'll find out they're here more often than you think.

The responses like "oh I could shit in the morning and lose the weight instead" type of comments belong on BikeForums or somewhere else. I'm sure mockery of innovation will get lots of +1's and "likes" over there if you want to feed your ego.

[lrdunc]

I understand where you're coming from, but feel like your response comes across as a bit harsh. I wasn't mocking the pulley wheel system in any way. I've learned more about cycling from these forums in the past year (I lurked for a while before I joined) than from any other source, and I've actually said as much and expressed my gratitude in multiple threads.

It was an offhanded comment - I have no interest in garnering "likes" or "+1s".

[wheelsONfire]

Prendrefeu, ok, i take your point as seen.

I am sorry, but to some point i find the ex thread name not totally abusive, it was partly made for fun you know!

Now i understand it perhaps, was not so obvious.

So, to keep to the relevant parts of this!

When changing to such huge pulleys, don't you also alter shifting quality?

I have a feeling there is a reason why none of the big 3 actually implemented these massive pulleys?

I might be off on this one?

Anyway, does Di2, EPS and Sram eTap work as intended with such a device?

Part from that, it seems a really steep price for this with respects to what most RDs costs these days.

[Calnago]

I didn't see the "problem" with your first title or other posters' posts either, it's good that you can poke fun or even be sarcastic if that's what you feel, and also good that manufacturers are aware that not everyone is just going to blindly accept their latest offerings without being able to see the real benefits, if any. I don't think the efforts will ever end to produce something the inventors think will sell. That's what inventors and companies and manufactures do.
But as for the large pulleys, if people believe they will save watts and be faster and are willing to pay for that, then so be it. With the larger pulleys however, i wonder how much extra chain length that takes up. With a standard chainring (39/53) and a large range cassette (11/29 for example) there isn't many links to cut from a campy record chain for example. If chainstays are on the longish side of things I wonder if it's possible that there might not even be enough chain length or if it would cause the dérailleur to "wrap" a bit differently than it was originally designed to with the standard pulleys. I tend to like to leave my dérailleurs and such unmodified so as not to disrupt anything that was all designed to work together, especially with the tight tolerances of today's groups. But to each his own.

[jpanspac]

I assume those are hybrid ceramic bearings, since they only mention ceramic balls. For that amount of money I'd expect to get full ceramic.

[prendrefeu]

But as for the large pulleys, if people believe they will save watts and be faster and are willing to pay for that, then so be it. With the larger pulleys however, i wonder how much extra chain length that takes up. With a standard chainring (39/53) and a large range cassette (11/29 for example) there isn't many links to cut from a campy record chain for example.

I thought about this too, and the solution I think might be possible is something like taking two chains with two sets of 'quick connects' (KMC refers to these as "missinglink".


Use the majority of one chain, use a little bit of the other, and use the two of these missinglink/quick-connects to make a longer chain? With two full length chains as your maximum potential it would be difficult to envision a chainstay long enough to exceed this... unless someone is adding this system to an Xtracycle? You never know.

There is an added weight when having a longer chain, and obviously larger cage & pulleys increases weight as well.
Perhaps DJ or someone else can run the numbers of weight vs. potential W gains.

The application may be better suited to a TT bike or those who prefer rolling-to-flat courses?

[thumper88]

I've gone back and forth over these in the past... it's a lot of cabbage for any bike part, particularly one we usually ignore.
That said, if you look at the $/watt benefits, it's probably no more silly than buying Zipp 404's or aero drop bars. It's on a par with things that are more accepted.
And yes, the gains are proven, though youre getting down into the hard to measure accurately range.

[prendrefeu]

For reference, DJ has run numbers on the Berner system:
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/2010/08/be ... grade.html

Berner has had this for a while now, at least since August 2010. They've been discussed here on WW.
FWB (Madcow/Jason?) had some modifications available as well, including testing a larger jockey wheel on the lower part of a cage, keeping the upper normal.
I don't have the link to that original forum post... he may have it if he reads this?

They appeared "in the wild" before Bike Rumor spotted them:
http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/08/04/fou ... -upgrades/

Also, via DJ's post (first link), you'll see this:
http://vimeo.com/13964141

http://www.gs-carbonparts.com/produkte/schaltwerk.html

Which points out how sad it is that people like DarkAlbert aren't producing anymore (as far as last I've heard), and instead we have a large influx of people who are less willing to get their hands dirty and tinker, instead we're mocking larger brands' attempts at mimicking what WW-folk have been doing for years. Quite sad....
It's even more amazing to think that the modifications being done over on the German and French WW-type forums make the modifications here look basic.
http://www.forum.light-bikes.de/showthr ... 12&t=22216

[Calnago]

I still wouldn't want to be having to buy two chains and piece them together (not hard to do) in order to accommodate larger pulleys in certain situations. I also get a chuckle how companies, when asked about any added aero drag as a result of the larger cage etc... From the article: "CeramicSpeed wouldn’t divulge exact figures but the company also claims that there’s essentially zero increase in aerodynamic drag with the bigger cage – at least when accounting for a realistically wide range of wind angles".
Lol. "Essentially zero" as in "it's not zero but it's so small it's insignificant". I would agree with that, yet if there is the tiniest most infinitesimal amount of aero savings it would definitely be touted as a "marginal gain".
And the cost for these pulleys and cage... About the cost of a high end dérailleur. Lol

[xena]

For reference, DJ has run numbers on the Berner system:
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/2010/08/be ... grade.html

Berner has had this for a while now, at least since August 2010. They've been discussed here on WW.
FWB (Madcow/Jason?) had some modifications available as well, including testing a larger jockey wheel on the lower part of a cage, keeping the upper normal.
I don't have the link to that original forum post... he may have it if he reads this?

They appeared "in the wild" before Bike Rumor spotted them:
http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/08/04/fou ... -upgrades/

Also, via DJ's post (first link), you'll see this:
http://vimeo.com/13964141

http://www.gs-carbonparts.com/produkte/schaltwerk.html

Which points out how sad it is that people like DarkAlbert aren't producing anymore (as far as last I've heard), and instead we have a large influx of people who are less willing to get their hands dirty and tinker, instead we're mocking larger brands' attempts at mimicking what WW-folk have been doing for years. Quite sad....
It's even more amazing to think that the modifications being done over on the German and French WW-type forums make the modifications here look basic.
http://www.forum.light-bikes.de/showthr ... 12&t=22216

"It's even more amazing to think that the modifications being done over on the German and French WW-type forums make the modifications here look basic"

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Have you seen the sort of equipment that fastdad has access to?
Have you seen who some of the posters are on the German site. Norbert for example?

I, like most WW's on this site only have basic tools to tune or modify. Sure I would love to have a rear mech or design a rear mech like fastdad or make a 500grm frame like Norbert . But I don't have the time or the access to such equipment.
I think the WW site has and is very creative at times and your vague criticism is a bit of an insult to those who are trying with the time and tools they have available to them.

Ray J

[mdeth1313]

Wasn't DarkAlbert selling something with a much larger pulley years ago?

[wheelsONfire]

Well, i think mockery is not really what it is. Ceramic speed do cost much more than needed.

I also would guess there is downsides to a longer cage and longer chain. If this was so great, why don't we see it used more regularly in the original designs?

Those i have asked directly, actually using Berner cage, almost no-one says they detect any upswing from it.

I wonder, the shifting quality could be affected by the added flex a longer cage give?

Friction might be better at the pulleys, but how about the whole drivetrain from crank to RD?

I would like to see Shimanos word on this. I think it was either Shimano or Campa who tested these to see if they found anything of a gain.

I don't remember where i read about it, which is a bit of a pitty.

It looks cool and perhaps that is what drives some of us.

I just don't get how a cage and pulleys can cost as much as a complete electronic RD.

That is a bit crazy and i think most would agree on that part.