Board logo

Cycle Show 2018
nick205 - 1/10/18 at 01:52 PM

Had a day out yesterday at the Cycyle Show 2018 at the NEC in Birmingham.

As you'd expect lots and lots of amazing bikes to swoon over. Probably my favourite though was the 1992 Kona Explosif below on the Kona stand. For me (44 years old) it's what mountain bikes looked like when I started riding them. No suspension, just gears, wheels, pedals and miles and miles of good cycling.

I still have my 1995 mountain bike now, it worked well then and it works just fine now too.

Daf - 1/10/18 at 02:01 PM

I love an old bike, although I wouldn’t like to ride that around the trails these days! I don’t think it would get half way around before breaking something, my wrists are hurting just looking at those forks.

nick205 - 1/10/18 at 02:36 PM

I still ride a mountain bike with rigid forks and it's fine for me. Wrists OK and elbows deal the bumps just fine too. In a way I feel it teaches you to try and ride a better line through things and to ride in a "lighter" way if that makes sense. Overall I see far less to go wrong with rigid forks over suspension forks and rigid ones are lighter as well.

Not my photo, but I also saw these at the show. I had a sit in it and have to say it felt really good - not cheap though!

20" front wheels and 26" rear wheel. Mainly standard cycle parts (headsets, cranks, bottom bracket, gears etc.).



[Edited on 1/10/18 by nick205]

[Edited on 1/10/18 by nick205]

HowardB - 1/10/18 at 03:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by nick205
I still ride a mountain bike with rigid forks and it's fine for me. Wrists OK and elbows deal the bumps just fine too. In a way I feel it teaches you to try and ride a better line through things and to ride in a "lighter" way if that makes sense. Overall I see far less to go wrong with rigid forks over suspension forks and rigid ones are lighter as well.

Not my photo, but I also saw these at the show. I had a sit in it and have to say it felt really good - not cheap though!

20" front wheels and 26" rear wheel. Mainly standard cycle parts (headsets, cranks, bottom bracket, gears etc.).



[Edited on 1/10/18 by nick205]

[Edited on 1/10/18 by nick205]


I fancied building one of those - no time - how expensive?

nick205 - 1/10/18 at 03:17 PM

That one starts at around £2,500. If you spec it the way you might like it the prices rises over £3,000.

I'm keen on cycling, but don't have that kind of budget for it when I've already got a couple of bikes.

The benefit I did see to them is that they use standard bike parts wherever possible. This means that if you're already equipped (tools and knowledge) there's nothing to stop you or demand "return to dealer" type work on them.

[Edited on 1/10/18 by nick205]

peter030371 - 1/10/18 at 04:06 PM

I've still got my first MTB which was my first ever 'brand new' bike (come to think of it, its still my only brand new bike!). Its a 1992 Kona Fire Mountain and needs a lot of TLC now. Should look like this one----> Kona Fire Mountain

However after many years of neglect it now needs some TLC and the costs of the 'retro' parts is more than a new mid-range bike

nick205 - 1/10/18 at 04:14 PM

You're not wrong, when bikes trip over into the "vintage" category parts do seem to get more expensive!

jelly head - 1/10/18 at 05:33 PM

I'm restoring a C16r at the moment so i know what it's like getting shafted for replacement parts but it'll be worth it, I've a modern full sus which weighs an absolute ton at the side of the orange. Can't wait to get it finished at out for a blast.

nick205 - 2/10/18 at 08:21 AM

C16R - another one that reminds me of days gone by!

Used to cycle with a chap who had one and loved it to bits. Sadly it was stolen from him quite some time ago (he still talks about it to this day though).

nick205 - 2/10/18 at 10:35 AM

One more photo for you all.

A Cannondale "Lefty" single side suspension fork. They've always looked starnge to me. I've never ridden one, but they've been arounf for a few years and people seem to get on OK with them. Not really sure what I think of them TBH.

YOUSAY54 - 2/10/18 at 10:37 AM

Hi I have a bike very much like the Kona but mine is a Giant, just hanging on garage wall now 77 don't ride it now in good condition for vintage proper gears not twistgrip cant get on with them, still have a folder which I ride buy the canal trying not to fall in.

jelly head - 2/10/18 at 05:41 PM

Yeah i don't think i'd trust that one leg to hold up under a good pounding....

One that i was always fascinated by was the Whyte PRST1, looked like something off tomorrows world to me

02GF74 - 2/10/18 at 09:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jelly head
Yeah i don't think i'd trust that one leg to hold up under a good pounding....



People always steer of clear of leftys due to the weirdness but it is the same arrangement as the front of every car.

If its designed and constructed properly, there is no reason why it should fail.

rusty nuts - 3/10/18 at 06:48 AM

I hope the show had plenty of lights and high vis clothing, something that seems to be severely lacking around Cambridge now the evenings are getting darker. And yes I do ride a bike before anyone thinks I'm anti bike

Daf - 3/10/18 at 07:40 AM

quote:
Originally posted by rusty nuts
I hope the show had plenty of lights and high vis clothing, something that seems to be severely lacking around Cambridge now the evenings are getting darker. And yes I do ride a bike before anyone thinks I'm anti bike


Don't get me started on this! I do a lot of driving in London and it's crazy - no helmets, dark inappropriate clothing, complete disregard for rules of the road, traffic lights don't seem to apply to them and serious attitude! And like you, I'm a cyclist and certainly not anti bike!

I wonder how those sit down bikes are on the road, I can't say I'd be keen myself riding one of those amongst traffic - I can't imagine they'd be as nimble as a traditional bike.

nick205 - 3/10/18 at 07:45 AM

quote:
Originally posted by jelly head
Yeah i don't think i'd trust that one leg to hold up under a good pounding....

One that i was always fascinated by was the Whyte PRST1, looked like something off tomorrows world to me



That always fascinated me as well.

Whyte had a stand at the show, but none of their bikes seemed to look like that any more. I wonder have cost and widely avaialble parts taken over or perhaps their design ethos has changed!


nick205 - 3/10/18 at 07:55 AM

quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
quote:
Originally posted by jelly head
Yeah i don't think i'd trust that one leg to hold up under a good pounding....



People always steer of clear of leftys due to the weirdness but it is the same arrangement as the front of every car.

If its designed and constructed properly, there is no reason why it should fail.



Whippy - you're correct most cars have Macpherson strut front suspension, which in essence is very similar to Cannondale's "Lefty" fork. Cars are well tested and proven and don't fall apart so why should the "Lefty" fork if it's designed and manufactured properly. I also think you're right that many people are simply afraid (put off) by something different and therefore avoid it. A shame really as it might be a brilliant idea and could indeed be lighter than the more familiar double sided suspension forks we're used to seeing.

Personally I'd love to dismantle a "Lefty" to understand how the inner telescopic section doesn't rotate in the outer section. From what I've seen it's a tubular design so there must be something preventing rotation. If it were oval or perhaps square section then it would be more obvious. The circular section I can't get my head around, hence wanting to dismantle one.

jps - 3/10/18 at 08:48 AM

I would have guess it is splined somehow...

And it is by the looks of this diagram: http://forums.mtbr.com/attachments/cannondale/555100d1278730455-broken-lefty-bearing-retainer-lefty-diagram.png

tomduffield13 - 3/10/18 at 09:02 AM

I've ridden a Cannondale Trigger Carbon with a lefty for a few years now, wouldn't change it.. First few rides a bit disconcerting when you look down halfway through a particularly tricky section, but overall, i wouldn't go back.

If nothing else, it's a talking point on the trails, I encourage you to try it!

(And no, you can't take it apart...)

nick205 - 3/10/18 at 11:18 AM

jps - That seems a design approach that would work!

tomduffield13 - I've heard others who've ridden them praise them as well. Cannondadle aren't daft and they've been making them for quite a few years now so I'd imagine they work pretty well or they'd have reverted to other manufacturers suspension forks.

Mr Whippy - 3/10/18 at 11:33 AM

so what is the advantage of having one fork over two? is their a weight penalty for such a beefy fork?

[Edited on 3/10/18 by Mr Whippy]

nick205 - 3/10/18 at 11:58 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
so what is the advantage of having one fork over two? is their a weight penalty for such a beefy fork?

[Edited on 3/10/18 by Mr Whippy]



When you look at current Fox suspension forks theyr'e up to Ø40mm now. The "Lefty" didn't look any more than that so I'd say it's probably a weight reduction overall.

That said I'm guessing you need a specific front wheel + axle to work with it. I guess that may have a weight penalty over standard front wheels and axles. It may also limit your choice of front wheels and axles for the bike as well.

[Edited on 3/10/18 by nick205]

02GF74 - 3/10/18 at 06:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
so what is the advantage of having one fork over two? is their a weight penalty for such a beefy fork?


Weight is a consideration but the main advantage touted is less stiction. I believe inside is a machined square tube with sets of hardened steel runners in between which are roller bearings. Apparently its a bit of a nightmare to maintain... Another advantage is that the tyre and inner tube can be removed without removing the wheel.

Its takes very little riding time to adjust but you start thinking whether you are leaning to one side. My take on this is not, the weight of the missing leg is small compared to the rider and it counteracts the weight of the drive train (chain, chainrings, cassette, mech) that is on the other side..

Guessing the reason it's not taken off is cost, USE made a single sided fork but with a cunning linkage arrangement, worth a Google.

nick205 - 4/10/18 at 08:02 AM

quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
so what is the advantage of having one fork over two? is their a weight penalty for such a beefy fork?


Weight is a consideration but the main advantage touted is less stiction. I believe inside is a machined square tube with sets of hardened steel runners in between which are roller bearings. Apparently its a bit of a nightmare to maintain... Another advantage is that the tyre and inner tube can be removed without removing the wheel.

Its takes very little riding time to adjust but you start thinking whether you are leaning to one side. My take on this is not, the weight of the missing leg is small compared to the rider and it counteracts the weight of the drive train (chain, chainrings, cassette, mech) that is on the other side..

Guessing the reason it's not taken off is cost, USE made a single sided fork but with a cunning linkage arrangement, worth a Google.



02GF74

I understand your thinking of left fork leg counteracting the drivetrain weight. However drivetrains themselves are moving swiftly away from 3 front x 8 rear sprockets to 1 front x 10-11 rear sprockets (known as 1x drivetrains). Several benefits with this drivetrain approach -simpler (no front deraileur, fewer chain rings and no front gear shifter) and lighter. Shimano, SRAM and others are all into it. It's changing the way mountain bike drivetrains look and will, no doubt, make it's way to other types of bike (road, cyclocross, touring, TT etc.).

Example Shimano XTR 1x crank:



[Edited on 4/10/18 by nick205]

jps - 4/10/18 at 08:57 AM

quote:
Originally posted by nick205
However drivetrains themselves are moving swiftly away from 3 front x 8 rear sprockets to 1 front x 10-11 rear sprockets (known as 1x drivetrains). Several benefits with this drivetrain approach -simpler (no front deraileur, fewer chain rings and no front gear shifter) and lighter. Shimano, SRAM and others are all into it. It's changing the way mountain bike drivetrains look and will, no doubt, make it's way to other types of bike (road, cyclocross, touring, TT etc.).


I can't see the 1x setup taking off in serious road cycling, there was a professional team this year that ran them - the riders complained and they dropped them partway through the year. Plus road cycling gear setups are mainly about getting as close a set of ratios through the rear block as possible. This means you can keep consistent cadence in your legs. So the cassette tends to vary by 1 tooth per sprocket. The two chain rings at the front give a fairly large step change for hills - i.e. 53/39 as standard

MTBs have always had bigger gaps between the sprockets on the cassette, so I can see why 1x has been easier to adopt.

Time trialists have been using 1x setups for years already - because they're typically racing on flatter courses where the don't need the '39' option of the 53/29 - so they just run a single chainring - and often at bigger sizes - like 56/57/58+

Daf - 4/10/18 at 09:42 AM

I can't speak for road cyclists (too scared of traffic to do that myself) but going to a 1x setup has been a revelation on the mtb for me. With all the dirt and suden changes in speed front derailleuro were never that reliable and needed constant maintnence. I have a couple of front rings mow and I'll swap over to a smaller one before going if im going somewhere with some serious climbing.

nick205 - 4/10/18 at 09:42 AM

jps

Fair comments on road racing setups.

Where some of the 1x MTB setups have reached 1x11 (11 different cogs wide on the rear sprocket) they're already using devices to help guide the chain on/off the single front chain ring. They won't be able to go much (if any) wider on the rear sprocket and live with the chain angle on/off the front chain ring. If they do the chain and chain ring will wear quickly and be up for replacement more often. Perhaps OK for well backed teams, but less so for more budget minded amateur cyclists.

I also saw a number of bikes at the show running internally geared rear hubs. These hubs didn't look light and I'd imagine they're not so cheap either.

Besides the MTB gear spread the other desire for smaller MTB front chain rings is to improve ground clearance and reduce bash damage (logs etc.).

All said, it's an area I shall be watching with interest to see how things change and develop.

[Edited on 4/10/18 by nick205]

02GF74 - 4/10/18 at 04:51 PM

quote:
Originally posted by nick205
.

I also saw a number of bikes at the show running internally geared rear hubs. These hubs didn't look light and I'd imagine they're not so cheap either.

Besides the MTB gear spread the other desire for smaller MTB front chain rings is to improve ground clearance and reduce bash damage (logs etc.).
,


Having gears inside the hub is not ideal, unsprung weight and all that (applicable to FS bikes)

Alternative is to have gearbox at the bottom bracket, see https://pinion.eu/en/.

Did you see any bikes at the show fitted with these.

nick205 - 5/10/18 at 08:01 AM

quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
quote:
Originally posted by nick205
.

I also saw a number of bikes at the show running internally geared rear hubs. These hubs didn't look light and I'd imagine they're not so cheap either.

Besides the MTB gear spread the other desire for smaller MTB front chain rings is to improve ground clearance and reduce bash damage (logs etc.).
,


Having gears inside the hub is not ideal, unsprung weight and all that (applicable to FS bikes)

Alternative is to have gearbox at the bottom bracket, see https://pinion.eu/en/.

Did you see any bikes at the show fitted with these.



I saw several belt drive hard tail bikes with internally geared rear hubs (Rohloff mainly). A component seller stand also had one of these hubs sectioned so you could see the internals. Yes the hubs are chunky in size and in weight. Possibly not so bad on a hard tail bike, but as you say probably more of an issue on a full suspension bike.

I didn't see any bikes with internal gears in the bottom brack section (they may have been there, but I didn't see them). Ultimately that type of arrangement would improve the unsprung mass and Centre of Gravity of the bike. Not sure you'd get a higher selection of gear ratios available to the cyclist though?

Rich J - 5/10/18 at 08:59 AM

Why not combine the "Lefty" with the gearbox, belt drive and add titanium?

https://www.hilite-bikes.com/titanium-pinion-mtb-mountainbike



[Edited on 5/10/18 by Rich J]

nick205 - 5/10/18 at 09:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Rich J
Why not combine the "Lefty" with the gearbox, belt drive and add titanium?

https://www.hilite-bikes.com/titanium-pinion-mtb-mountainbike



[Edited on 5/10/18 by Rich J]



Rather nifty

Didn't see this at the show, but a brief scan of the website and it looks pretty good.

Not ridden a Titanium framed bike myself, but when you see a well made one they are quite a thing to take in.

jps - 5/10/18 at 12:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by nick205
They won't be able to go much (if any) wider on the rear sprocket and live with the chain angle on/off the front chain ring.

I also saw a number of bikes at the show running internally geared rear hubs. These hubs didn't look light and I'd imagine they're not so cheap either.
[Edited on 4/10/18 by nick205]


I haven't had my measuring tape out to check - but my understanding is that cassettes haven't been getting any wider since 8 speed. Hence chains are available in 6/7/8speed, then with distinct specific chains for 9spd, 10spd, 11spd... They've just been making the sprockets and the chains thinner.

Hub gears typically have the problem of large gaps between ratios, because they tend to be applied in 1x settings and because of the added complexity of adding 'another gear' to the setup. But for utility, rather than 'fun', cycling i'd have hub gears every time - they're much more 'fit and forget' than derailleurs.

[Edited on 5/10/18 by jps]

02GF74 - 5/10/18 at 05:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by nick205. Ultimately that type of arrangement would improve the unsprung mass and Centre of Gravity of the bike. Not sure you'd get a higher selection of gear ratios available to the cyclist though?
...

This type of gearbox is suited to downhill where weight is not such an issue. They give more clearance since there is no rear derailleur and smallest chainring plus chain less likely to drop off.

Maybe a few more years of development it may be the norm, derailleur shifting is pretty brutal forcing the chain across sprockets, probably invented by the victoriana but is very efficient and effective.

The shimano di2 is able to shift front and rear at same time to avoid gaps in the gear ratios, personally I don't like the idea of battery gears due to what happens when the battery runs out.

nick205 - 8/10/18 at 08:44 AM

jps - I do believe you're right that cassettes and chains have become more setup specific. Probably good design and manufacturing development, but as with most things I suspect it'll reach it's limits in terms of perfomance/durability.

jossey - 5/11/18 at 03:08 AM

I still have my kona pahoehoe 1998 full xtr groupset from stif in Leeds.

Actually bought the cindercone but the frame broke jumping off a van.
But they replaced it under warranty which was nice as it broke at a weld.

Love kona bikes.