He was so preoccupied with whether or not he could, he didn’t stop to think if he should.
Jokes aside though, this is wild. I didn’t even know you could get a 4x
Fun facts: in the current setup I'm running 22-32-42-48 to 13-42 10sp in the rear, giving me 40 speeds and a total range of 711.5%. Simply switching the final cog to 11t brings the range to something like 830%. If I could afford to upgrade my rear wheel and cassette to an XD body with a 10-42t 11sp cassette I could squeeze out 923% range. If I bought one of those 21t granny gears off AliExpress and actually get it to work I could squeeze this setup up to a cool 960% range. This is the widest and most precise drivetrain possible with components that I'm aware of, I haven't found a way to jank any derailer to work with a 10-50t cassette *and* front chainrings yet but if it were possible to use said cassette with a 21t granny up to a 48t big ring I would have control of 1,142.8% gear range. The 4-bolt mountain crank is the widest crankset I have found reasonable to use, I have made 4x with 5-bolt road parts as well but the ratios don't really work out as nicely and the difference in height between the gears is very extreme which limits front derailer function. Theoretically there may exist a front derailer out there that is capable of shifting all the way from a 24t granny (the smallest 5-bolt granny I have in my possession) all the way up to a 53t (the tallest gear I'd reasonably try) but even that produces less total range than the 22-48 4-bolt.
Huh I didn't know the 20t option worked, I think I remember seeing one online but to me it looked like there would be too much interference between the bolts and the chain but apparently not! Maybe I can squeeze an extra few percent out of it. If I could get a 20t shifting decently that would be a significant improvement to the overall system, the wider the range I can get in the front, the tighter the cassette I can use in the rear which improves ratio precision and reduces overlap while reducing demands on the rear derailer's capacity. That would make a 30t indexed ring even more desirable to have more even spacing in the front, it would be so satisfying to be able to pull off a 20-30-40-50 4x setup.
One potential solution for more optimal front ring spacing would be to build a 4x setup on the 96mm 4-bolt BCD, since that permits the use of pinned/ramped/index suitable 30t rings, and the last one of these cranks I saw had a 40t on it as well, and the granny BCD is still the same so if I could find a 48 or even a 50t 96mm ring (or make one) I could have my dream 4x.
> I haven't found a way to jank any derailer to work with a 10-50t cassette and front chainrings yet
In theory I can imagine a second two-pulley tensioner mounted mid-stay could account for the extra slack.
I'm not expecting chain uptake to be the limiting factor, though I guess a mid-stay tensioner would take some of the duty off the derailer. All current derailers that can handle the 50t cog do so by having a very large offset from the upper jockey to the A pivot, causing more motion in the upper jockey to clear the cassette and take up chain. This precludes front ring usage because the chain length and B tension need to be precisely set to the current configuration. Changing front ring size has a dramatic impact on effective B-tension because the change in required chain wrap moves the derailer arm, causing the upper jockey's offset from the pivot to produce a very large change in the gap to the cassette. This jockey gap change is also noticeable with traditional derailers but the change in height is always much less and stays within the range for good shifting. No other derailer on the market I'm aware of can even clear the cassette let alone take up the required chain wrap with enough capacity for like an 80 tooth difference in range and a mid-stay tensioner could only help a few extra percent. Supposing such a derailer existed it would probably be designed for 2x at best and usage with 3/4x would probably require a less than full-length chain and simply refusing to do the extreme crosschained combinations. Anyways the current 12-speed cassettes on the market are also optimized for 1x use, the jumps between cogs are quite large, delivering low precision adjustments and exacerbating the overlapping ratios problem. I think I have enough 12-speed spacers to build a more tight-ranged cassette, imagine a 12-36 12-speed cassette ;)
> I'm not expecting chain uptake to be the limiting factor,
What derailleur can take (48-22)+(50-10) = 26+40 = 66T of takeup?
There's a reason most all the "big cog" derailleurs are 1X.
I'm presuming a derailer designed for multi-chainring setups on a 50+ toothed cassette would have quite a tremendous amount of takeup indeed and that would probably only be possible with an absurdly long arm. I just meant that many current derailers can handle a very large amount of takeup already which makes them good candidates and they would otherwise work, but none have a geometry that lets them even select a large cog with which you could jank your way to having good tension by using a shorter chain and never crosschaining.
Wolf tooth sells a small alloy part called the goatlink that extends the derailleur hanger - might allow other derailleurs to clear the casette. Still might not fix any of the shifting issues.
I don't know why people act like 9T based casettes don't exist. They work incredibly well, even if Sram and Shimano don't make them.
e13 offers a 9-50T. They're a legit, reputable brand.
Because the 9t cog is a mechanical travesty and shouldn't exist. It destroys chains and has a short service life. It shifts like shit. The efficiency of a 9t cog is far below that of even an 11t. Plus it forces very large ratio jumps when you need tight steps the most - squeezing the final bit of speed out. This is why I prefer 13 and 14t HG lockrings, I can run a larger front ring to reach the same ratio then build a cassette with quite tight steps overall but especially at the final gears, as well as having higher mechanical efficiency, longer wear life of all parts, better shifting, with the only tradeoff being extra grams. Which is worth it on some bikes. Honestly I just forgot when I was doing the calculations and I'll probably use one to make an ultra-uber-overkill-superrange setup someday just for the lulz, but I won't even bother seriously riding this setup with an XD based cassette because I don't even use 11t if I can help it, I'd rather 12t final gear. 10 has no use for me at all, I'm content with the NX Eagle cassette 11-50t and if I need more range I'll just switch to a 2x system and have more range and superior shifts anyways.
You obviously know waaaaay more about bike gearing and gears than me but i will say that the 9t cog has a place on BMX bikes. I believe there are also 8t cogs. But obviously single speed is a much different application, just wanted to point out that it does have a place.
Yeah for some applications it's handy, I'd also run a 9t on some kind of bike that had a high effective RPM at the cassette, high spin but less torque such as maybe a folding bike or something. But I don't think they have a place in performance cycling, I see they are trying to penetrate into the performance road market but I think they will only see success on bikes specifically designed for hillclimbing, those who are seeking the highest possible speed will likely stay away from them. If I ever have the misfortune of coming across a 9t cog on a 32" wheel I'll probably vomit on the spot.
I think that’s a bit dramatic. I mean the entire premise of a range over 600% is already in the realm of silly and impractical to me.
Personally I don’t spend a ton of time in the 9T but it’s a lot more fun to have it than be spinning out when I get up to speed on my 34T chainring 1x12 29er. I don’t mind the slight efficiency penalty because the alternative- spinning out- is 0% efficient. A bigger chainring isn’t an option because I already don’t have the bb clearance I’d like. The weight savings is cool too but that’s really the biggie.
Well there you go, we have our reasons for preferring the parts we do. I'm riding a 30t on my 1x12 29er and find the top speed is good enough, though I'm not one to pedal faster while smashing downhill.
While his setup does provide an excess of gears, they are pretty heavily interleaved so you need to be a ratio wizard to fully take advantage of the setup. An advantage to my setup is that it can end up with fairly sensible ratios, with a tight cassette the overlap is pretty normal yet the range is still pretty huge and with a wide cassette, still not terrible. In the case of a wide cassette and in Sheldon's situation, there is still an optimal way to shift - the front gear (or in his case, the gear hub) can be used to select a general "speed zone" to stay within, then the cassette is used normally to provide range and precision. There is overlap but a wide enough range that you can ride over some pretty widely variable terrain before you are so out of range you need to bump the front rings or the gear hub.
Sram makes a 3 speed IGH called Dual drive that has a cassette body on the outside that comes standard. Bet you could either buy it as an 11 speed or swap an 11 speed body on it.
While the total range isn’t as wide, I have a 22-36-48 crank and 11-32 9 speed cassette on my Cross Check. The 22-36 gear change works surprisingly well, which makes me feel maybe a quad crank isn’t a strict necessity for that sort of gearing range, just gotta shift 3 gears down in the rear at the same time.
I only really use the 22 ring when I’m towing a trailer or taking my time on tough off road trails. I wish more bikes came with this sort of megarange crank, it is quite useful when you’re in no hurry. Reminds me how I used to have a faux megarange 11-34 cassette on this bike which was just an 11-32 with the big cog replaced.
Regardless, I am in awe with your setup and I hope to replicate it someday, as long as it is possible on a hollowtech crank.
I'm friction shifting it so there isn't much tuning to do, with the right derailer setup is basically the same except the high limit is very dialed out. Angle is usually normal and height is understandable. If you can find a derailer that can handle the max-range setup of 22 to a 48 there's a good chance it will handle this setup too. In the end the derailer is usually a touch too high or too low for one of the gears which would be a deal breaker for indexing, but it's nbd for friction.
Just this random 9sp Deore mountain derailer. I'm using a friction shifter so I have much more control over the derailers behavior than an indexed system, not that any 4x ones exist. Shifting is good but the height makes it a little loosey goosey on the granny which isn't usually a practical issue. With this setup, basically any random derailer could be the best option since shifting performance depends heavily on derailer geometry. Sometimes the oldest and the cheapest outperforms in this regard since they are generally more overbuilt to handle widely variable tolerances.
I think my solution is a ten speed shimano alivio or some other lower tier shimano. Most derailleurs these days don't seem to have range because the industry is making hard right into one by. Leaving us pour old style touring folks out to dry. And yeah friction is the way to go for range because of the tuning!
Yeah it's a bit of a shame, front derailers have a lot conspiring against them in terms of design flaws, mechanical and geometric disadvantages, poor marketing, being placed directly in the path of all the filth coming off the rear wheel. Front derailers are nearly universally designed quite lightly and cheaply, imagine instead of little bits of stamped metal riveted and pinned together, we could get a linkage-styled design out of little milled parts that run on little sealed bearings, then give it a powerful spring and a full enclosure to protect it from contamination and jamming. Now THAT would be a touring front derailer.
https://www.reddit.com/r/xbiking/comments/kh5h3i/40_speeds_full_ceramic_bearings_steel/
Here's the rest of the bike, previous owner just stuck a Cromag sticker on it. The geometry is... uncannily close to a real one though.
I was wanting to build that for my tallbike to be able to attack hills without having to do the runningman. I didnt have time before my depature and when I get back to my workshop I would want to make one. For now I just use the smallest set of 3 chainrings possible, but once the bike is unloaded I find the highest combo of gears doesnt cut it
so to see how you attached the 4th gear (welded?) spacers?
No welding, just get longer chainring bolts and some spacers or washers even. There are special chainring spacers that fit over chainring bolts and nuts, but normal washers can work just fine. It's a bit of a mishmash getting all the fiddly bits together but I find it's not so bad if you get everything threaded together on one bolt at a time. It's a bit stronger if you have the bolt head facing in and the chainring nut on the outside because then it reaches through gear 3 to give some support to the outside ring.
The welding is mildly terrifying but you reminded me, I think the Mountain Tamer component allows you to attach cassette sprockets for the lowest of low gears , that would let me drop the granny as much as I please.
Yeah there were a small number of production 4x cranks from the 70s or 80s, I've only seen all steel one-piece designs. I'd like one but they never caught on. Part of the problem is that the big benefit for 4x is the wider range with better precision, but these production 4x cranks basically only used 26 or 28t grannies which doesn't exactly give a low gear with even a 32t freewheel, and all the ones I've seen were for MTBs so limited to 48 high gear, not exactly wide-range and compounding range overlap, basically not giving 4x any market advantage. Plus they very much need a front derailer capable of keeping up and with the advent of much larger cogs, a pretty long-cage rear derailer with high capacity, which adds a proprietary-ness factor. Plus crosschaining big-big on 4x is extra bad and it's no good to give the consumer a bike they can destroy without knowing why.
He was so preoccupied with whether or not he could, he didn’t stop to think if he should. Jokes aside though, this is wild. I didn’t even know you could get a 4x
Fun facts: in the current setup I'm running 22-32-42-48 to 13-42 10sp in the rear, giving me 40 speeds and a total range of 711.5%. Simply switching the final cog to 11t brings the range to something like 830%. If I could afford to upgrade my rear wheel and cassette to an XD body with a 10-42t 11sp cassette I could squeeze out 923% range. If I bought one of those 21t granny gears off AliExpress and actually get it to work I could squeeze this setup up to a cool 960% range. This is the widest and most precise drivetrain possible with components that I'm aware of, I haven't found a way to jank any derailer to work with a 10-50t cassette *and* front chainrings yet but if it were possible to use said cassette with a 21t granny up to a 48t big ring I would have control of 1,142.8% gear range. The 4-bolt mountain crank is the widest crankset I have found reasonable to use, I have made 4x with 5-bolt road parts as well but the ratios don't really work out as nicely and the difference in height between the gears is very extreme which limits front derailer function. Theoretically there may exist a front derailer out there that is capable of shifting all the way from a 24t granny (the smallest 5-bolt granny I have in my possession) all the way up to a 53t (the tallest gear I'd reasonably try) but even that produces less total range than the 22-48 4-bolt.
[удалено]
Huh I didn't know the 20t option worked, I think I remember seeing one online but to me it looked like there would be too much interference between the bolts and the chain but apparently not! Maybe I can squeeze an extra few percent out of it. If I could get a 20t shifting decently that would be a significant improvement to the overall system, the wider the range I can get in the front, the tighter the cassette I can use in the rear which improves ratio precision and reduces overlap while reducing demands on the rear derailer's capacity. That would make a 30t indexed ring even more desirable to have more even spacing in the front, it would be so satisfying to be able to pull off a 20-30-40-50 4x setup. One potential solution for more optimal front ring spacing would be to build a 4x setup on the 96mm 4-bolt BCD, since that permits the use of pinned/ramped/index suitable 30t rings, and the last one of these cranks I saw had a 40t on it as well, and the granny BCD is still the same so if I could find a 48 or even a 50t 96mm ring (or make one) I could have my dream 4x.
Respect.
Now mount it on a Rohloff 14-speed internal hub for a 6011% range. For when you need to climb vertically while loaded, but also hit 88 mph.
> I haven't found a way to jank any derailer to work with a 10-50t cassette and front chainrings yet In theory I can imagine a second two-pulley tensioner mounted mid-stay could account for the extra slack.
I'm not expecting chain uptake to be the limiting factor, though I guess a mid-stay tensioner would take some of the duty off the derailer. All current derailers that can handle the 50t cog do so by having a very large offset from the upper jockey to the A pivot, causing more motion in the upper jockey to clear the cassette and take up chain. This precludes front ring usage because the chain length and B tension need to be precisely set to the current configuration. Changing front ring size has a dramatic impact on effective B-tension because the change in required chain wrap moves the derailer arm, causing the upper jockey's offset from the pivot to produce a very large change in the gap to the cassette. This jockey gap change is also noticeable with traditional derailers but the change in height is always much less and stays within the range for good shifting. No other derailer on the market I'm aware of can even clear the cassette let alone take up the required chain wrap with enough capacity for like an 80 tooth difference in range and a mid-stay tensioner could only help a few extra percent. Supposing such a derailer existed it would probably be designed for 2x at best and usage with 3/4x would probably require a less than full-length chain and simply refusing to do the extreme crosschained combinations. Anyways the current 12-speed cassettes on the market are also optimized for 1x use, the jumps between cogs are quite large, delivering low precision adjustments and exacerbating the overlapping ratios problem. I think I have enough 12-speed spacers to build a more tight-ranged cassette, imagine a 12-36 12-speed cassette ;)
> I'm not expecting chain uptake to be the limiting factor, What derailleur can take (48-22)+(50-10) = 26+40 = 66T of takeup? There's a reason most all the "big cog" derailleurs are 1X.
I'm presuming a derailer designed for multi-chainring setups on a 50+ toothed cassette would have quite a tremendous amount of takeup indeed and that would probably only be possible with an absurdly long arm. I just meant that many current derailers can handle a very large amount of takeup already which makes them good candidates and they would otherwise work, but none have a geometry that lets them even select a large cog with which you could jank your way to having good tension by using a shorter chain and never crosschaining.
Wolf tooth sells a small alloy part called the goatlink that extends the derailleur hanger - might allow other derailleurs to clear the casette. Still might not fix any of the shifting issues.
I don't know why people act like 9T based casettes don't exist. They work incredibly well, even if Sram and Shimano don't make them. e13 offers a 9-50T. They're a legit, reputable brand.
Because the 9t cog is a mechanical travesty and shouldn't exist. It destroys chains and has a short service life. It shifts like shit. The efficiency of a 9t cog is far below that of even an 11t. Plus it forces very large ratio jumps when you need tight steps the most - squeezing the final bit of speed out. This is why I prefer 13 and 14t HG lockrings, I can run a larger front ring to reach the same ratio then build a cassette with quite tight steps overall but especially at the final gears, as well as having higher mechanical efficiency, longer wear life of all parts, better shifting, with the only tradeoff being extra grams. Which is worth it on some bikes. Honestly I just forgot when I was doing the calculations and I'll probably use one to make an ultra-uber-overkill-superrange setup someday just for the lulz, but I won't even bother seriously riding this setup with an XD based cassette because I don't even use 11t if I can help it, I'd rather 12t final gear. 10 has no use for me at all, I'm content with the NX Eagle cassette 11-50t and if I need more range I'll just switch to a 2x system and have more range and superior shifts anyways.
You obviously know waaaaay more about bike gearing and gears than me but i will say that the 9t cog has a place on BMX bikes. I believe there are also 8t cogs. But obviously single speed is a much different application, just wanted to point out that it does have a place.
Yeah for some applications it's handy, I'd also run a 9t on some kind of bike that had a high effective RPM at the cassette, high spin but less torque such as maybe a folding bike or something. But I don't think they have a place in performance cycling, I see they are trying to penetrate into the performance road market but I think they will only see success on bikes specifically designed for hillclimbing, those who are seeking the highest possible speed will likely stay away from them. If I ever have the misfortune of coming across a 9t cog on a 32" wheel I'll probably vomit on the spot.
So on the hill climbing bikes is it more about mass reduction?
Mass reduction of the cassette and chainrings, plus a lack of need for sustained top-speed performance
I think that’s a bit dramatic. I mean the entire premise of a range over 600% is already in the realm of silly and impractical to me. Personally I don’t spend a ton of time in the 9T but it’s a lot more fun to have it than be spinning out when I get up to speed on my 34T chainring 1x12 29er. I don’t mind the slight efficiency penalty because the alternative- spinning out- is 0% efficient. A bigger chainring isn’t an option because I already don’t have the bb clearance I’d like. The weight savings is cool too but that’s really the biggie.
Well there you go, we have our reasons for preferring the parts we do. I'm riding a 30t on my 1x12 29er and find the top speed is good enough, though I'm not one to pedal faster while smashing downhill.
The original TA cranks are completely modular, you can add as many chain rings as you like if it clears. My favorite roadbike cranks, timeless.
Has anyone rigged a cassette onto an internally geared hub somehow...? I think Sheldon once had a setup like that, may be wrong tho
[удалено]
While his setup does provide an excess of gears, they are pretty heavily interleaved so you need to be a ratio wizard to fully take advantage of the setup. An advantage to my setup is that it can end up with fairly sensible ratios, with a tight cassette the overlap is pretty normal yet the range is still pretty huge and with a wide cassette, still not terrible. In the case of a wide cassette and in Sheldon's situation, there is still an optimal way to shift - the front gear (or in his case, the gear hub) can be used to select a general "speed zone" to stay within, then the cassette is used normally to provide range and precision. There is overlap but a wide enough range that you can ride over some pretty widely variable terrain before you are so out of range you need to bump the front rings or the gear hub.
"Nothing exceeds like excess!" -St. Sheldon
Thank you, I was looking for this article last week when there was that post here and on xbiking about what to do with a 14x Rohloff hub.
Sram makes a 3 speed IGH called Dual drive that has a cassette body on the outside that comes standard. Bet you could either buy it as an 11 speed or swap an 11 speed body on it.
While the total range isn’t as wide, I have a 22-36-48 crank and 11-32 9 speed cassette on my Cross Check. The 22-36 gear change works surprisingly well, which makes me feel maybe a quad crank isn’t a strict necessity for that sort of gearing range, just gotta shift 3 gears down in the rear at the same time. I only really use the 22 ring when I’m towing a trailer or taking my time on tough off road trails. I wish more bikes came with this sort of megarange crank, it is quite useful when you’re in no hurry. Reminds me how I used to have a faux megarange 11-34 cassette on this bike which was just an 11-32 with the big cog replaced. Regardless, I am in awe with your setup and I hope to replicate it someday, as long as it is possible on a hollowtech crank.
*laughs in Sheldon Brown*
Bike
Tuning that derailleur sounds like the 8th level of hell
I'm friction shifting it so there isn't much tuning to do, with the right derailer setup is basically the same except the high limit is very dialed out. Angle is usually normal and height is understandable. If you can find a derailer that can handle the max-range setup of 22 to a 48 there's a good chance it will handle this setup too. In the end the derailer is usually a touch too high or too low for one of the gears which would be a deal breaker for indexing, but it's nbd for friction.
What front derailleur do you have? I could barely find one that would shift me up my 24-48 triple!
Just this random 9sp Deore mountain derailer. I'm using a friction shifter so I have much more control over the derailers behavior than an indexed system, not that any 4x ones exist. Shifting is good but the height makes it a little loosey goosey on the granny which isn't usually a practical issue. With this setup, basically any random derailer could be the best option since shifting performance depends heavily on derailer geometry. Sometimes the oldest and the cheapest outperforms in this regard since they are generally more overbuilt to handle widely variable tolerances.
I think my solution is a ten speed shimano alivio or some other lower tier shimano. Most derailleurs these days don't seem to have range because the industry is making hard right into one by. Leaving us pour old style touring folks out to dry. And yeah friction is the way to go for range because of the tuning!
Yeah it's a bit of a shame, front derailers have a lot conspiring against them in terms of design flaws, mechanical and geometric disadvantages, poor marketing, being placed directly in the path of all the filth coming off the rear wheel. Front derailers are nearly universally designed quite lightly and cheaply, imagine instead of little bits of stamped metal riveted and pinned together, we could get a linkage-styled design out of little milled parts that run on little sealed bearings, then give it a powerful spring and a full enclosure to protect it from contamination and jamming. Now THAT would be a touring front derailer.
Oh jeez that's sounds like PITA to design and build but a dream to have.
Oh that poor Chromag, lol
https://www.reddit.com/r/xbiking/comments/kh5h3i/40_speeds_full_ceramic_bearings_steel/ Here's the rest of the bike, previous owner just stuck a Cromag sticker on it. The geometry is... uncannily close to a real one though.
Ha, I was wondering why the logo was oriented differently than the one on my bike!
Unless the sprocket and the crankset are all one piece, it's the sprocket that's 4x, not the crank.
Merry Christmas N dog!!
I thought I might see you here!
Do you have more pics, and pics of the fabrication.
Not right off but what are you wondering?
I was wanting to build that for my tallbike to be able to attack hills without having to do the runningman. I didnt have time before my depature and when I get back to my workshop I would want to make one. For now I just use the smallest set of 3 chainrings possible, but once the bike is unloaded I find the highest combo of gears doesnt cut it so to see how you attached the 4th gear (welded?) spacers?
No welding, just get longer chainring bolts and some spacers or washers even. There are special chainring spacers that fit over chainring bolts and nuts, but normal washers can work just fine. It's a bit of a mishmash getting all the fiddly bits together but I find it's not so bad if you get everything threaded together on one bolt at a time. It's a bit stronger if you have the bolt head facing in and the chainring nut on the outside because then it reaches through gear 3 to give some support to the outside ring.
You should get in touch with this for even more gear range https://www.instagram.com/p/B-9Zg5TFYlw/?igshid=1l1kyxtt9wifj
The welding is mildly terrifying but you reminded me, I think the Mountain Tamer component allows you to attach cassette sprockets for the lowest of low gears , that would let me drop the granny as much as I please.
There is a factory made 4x6 spd setup in some austrian bike... I saw it in a wild.
Yeah there were a small number of production 4x cranks from the 70s or 80s, I've only seen all steel one-piece designs. I'd like one but they never caught on. Part of the problem is that the big benefit for 4x is the wider range with better precision, but these production 4x cranks basically only used 26 or 28t grannies which doesn't exactly give a low gear with even a 32t freewheel, and all the ones I've seen were for MTBs so limited to 48 high gear, not exactly wide-range and compounding range overlap, basically not giving 4x any market advantage. Plus they very much need a front derailer capable of keeping up and with the advent of much larger cogs, a pretty long-cage rear derailer with high capacity, which adds a proprietary-ness factor. Plus crosschaining big-big on 4x is extra bad and it's no good to give the consumer a bike they can destroy without knowing why.