new frame rumors for 2023?

[Stendhal]

https://wheelbased.com/2023/02/05/bicyc ... ecialized/

So 1x only? ...thinking back to the Softride bikes with that weird appendage for the front derailleur. Ewww.

Then you have new tech such as classified hub.

2x is a dying technology. They have to start thinking (designing) ahead.

I'm intrigued by Classified and hope to make it to Sea Otter in April to check it out there (they are exhibiting)

[cajer]

You lose a few % drive train effiency. So if you want to go fast there's no point in looking at classified.

[TobinHatesYou]

You lose a few % drive train effiency. So if you want to go fast there's no point in looking at classified.

On an extended steep climb perhaps, but there is something to be said about being able to stay in something 50x17 or 50x19 or with a very straight chainline. Or perform a front shift instantly with no hesitation/delay.

[elmtree]

You lose a few % drive train effiency. So if you want to go fast there's no point in looking at classified.

That's only in the virtual small ring though. So if you're in the 1:1 it's exactly the same as a normal 1x setup. I know one person very happy with it in gravel and they're fast. I think reliability is more of an issue for those long gravel races once you're strong enough.

[njleach]

Isn't the Classified system more aerodynamic because of the 1x setup, i.e. one less chainring and no derailleur?

So whatever you're losing in drivetrain efficiency you're probably making up for in reduced drag

[emotive]

Isn't the Classified system more aerodynamic because of the 1x setup, i.e. one less chainring and no derailleur?

So whatever you're losing in drivetrain efficiency you're probably making up for in reduced drag

I don’t think a 1x is going to be a few percent more aero. No idea but I would guess less than 0.5% gain?

[MichaelK]

Typically 3-4W gained aerodynamically. 6-8W lost due to drive-train inefficiency.

[cajer]

Typically 3-4W gained aerodynamically. 6-8W lost due to drive-train inefficiency.

All the 1x testing I've seen show at ~2W at 40-45 kph. Where as you're losing 3-5% due to your gear hub at all times. If you're pushing 300W up a hill that's up to 15W losses, which is huge and the equivlant of losing a few kg.

You lose a few % drive train effiency. So if you want to go fast there's no point in looking at classified.

That's only in the virtual small ring though. So if you're in the 1:1 it's exactly the same as a normal 1x setup. I know one person very happy with it in gravel and they're fast. I think reliability is more of an issue for those long gravel races once you're strong enough.

Do we know if all the gears decouple in the large "ring"? I'm not sure that's the case as it would require very careful gear timing.

[elmtree]

You lose a few % drive train effiency. So if you want to go fast there's no point in looking at classified.

That's only in the virtual small ring though. So if you're in the 1:1 it's exactly the same as a normal 1x setup. I know one person very happy with it in gravel and they're fast. I think reliability is more of an issue for those long gravel races once you're strong enough.

Do we know if all the gears decouple in the large "ring"? I'm not sure that's the case as it would require very careful gear timing.
[/quote]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but basically in the "big" ring is just a locked hub so it acts like a normal hub. "Little ring" is when the internal gearbox enrages and you use a little efficiency

[jfranci3]

Typically 3-4W gained aerodynamically. 6-8W lost due to drive-train inefficiency.

All the 1x testing I've seen show at ~2W at 40-45 kph. Where as you're losing 3-5% due to your gear hub at all times. If you're pushing 300W up a hill that's up to 15W losses, which is huge and the equivlant of losing a few kg.

[/quote]

I think your numbers are excessive on the drivetrain effiency - 2w at lower speeds to 6w at top speeds @250w on an uncommonly wide 10-48 vs 11-34 cassette. Note that going from the big ring to the little one effectively costs you 2w as well. A road/TT drivetrain would be closer. https://www.cyclingabout.com/drivetrain ... een-1x-2x/
As for aero, most TT chainring makers claim 1-4w at 50kph on a TT bike. On a gravel/road bike, you're putting a larger RD and cassette on there. I'd say it's a wash. The better arguement for 1x is just less complexity.

On the classififed hub, it's locked in main gear, so no mechanical loss. In the hill climb gear, most geared system gives up ~4% to a single speed.

Single Speed (Chainlube test by same lab ) = 5w loss on 53x11(/) https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/wp-c ... ound-1.pdf
Deraileur big ring = 13w loss in 53x11

Normalizing these numbers (middle cog; going from a 11t -> 16t saves about 3w before the drop off isn't so big).
Single speed: est 2w loss (53x15t) ~1% loss
2x big ring (53x21t): 9w loss ~3.5% loss
2x little ring (39x 21t): 9w loss ~3.5% loss
1x (48x21): 10w loss ~4% loss
Classified locked (53x21): est 9w loss ~3.5% loss
Classified :.7 gear (53x21): est16w loss ~6.5% loss (3.5% more than the deraileur system + 3% gearbox inefficency)

[aeroisnteverything]

We don't have the data for classified, so this is just conjecture. They claim < 1% losses, no one believes that based on other geared systems, so we just need to wait until someone tests it.

That said, little ring is less efficient than big ring, by like 1w. That loss won't be there with classified.

[HHH]

WTF!

[cajer]

We don't have the data for classified, so this is just conjecture. They claim < 1% losses, no one believes that based on other geared systems, so we just need to wait until someone tests it.

That said, little ring is less efficient than big ring, by like 1w. That loss won't be there with classified.

Gotcha I hadn't realize things were locked before. It's almost impossible they see < 1% losses as plantary gear systems are very mature. Even still as shown above, it's still a huge amount of losses, of which very few are recovered via aero.

[cajer]

IMG_1998.jpg
WTF!

IMG_1998.jpg
WTF!

Seems like the much higher seat tube bottle would preclude smaller frame sizes. Additionally that seems much more draggy than having it + down tube bottle lower down

[micky]

There's pictures circulating with bottle cages on the top tube so my guess would be something between gravel/mtb endurance.