Eleven speed cassettes wouldn't satisfy gear junkies forever. At Interbike last week, Phil Wood (NOT even Campagnolo or Shimano!) revealed a major trump card and introduced to the bicycling world the 13-speed cassette hub.
Though it was displayed more as a "concept" than an actual production item, sources say that PW wanted to gauge consumer interest and then explore the possibilities for retail sales. I have no doubt that folks at Shimano and maybe SRAM will be taking a look at the possibilities, too.
Not for road bikes (not yet, anyhow).
The 13-speed cassette hub was displayed on a Sycip-built "Fat Bike" with a 1x13 drivetrain and a massive 222 mm wide rear hub spacing. Keep in mind that most current road bikes are spaced at 130 mm, while most current mountain bikes are 135, so that's a lot of real estate between the rear dropouts. According to the folks at Phil Wood, they have given consideration to making a version as "narrow" as 150 mm (but no less), which might make it possible for use on "normal" (as in "not fat") mountain bikes. Interestingly, the spacing on the left side of the hub displayed at Interbike (which is set up for a brake disc) is equal to the spacing on the right side, yielding a symmetrical no-dish wheel. I guess you can do that when you've got 222 mm to play with.
So, does the world really need a 13-speed gear cluster? Haven't we passed the point of diminishing returns? And if not, would we then see one of the major component companies pair that up with a double, or even triple crank for 26 or 39 speeds? If 13 becomes a reality, then I think we should really expect it.
The idea of that seems counter-intuitive to me. If you're on a fat bike, wouldn't you want a more sturdy set up? A paper-thin chain (I'd assume that is a 10/11 speed chain being used on the prototype, though surely a 13 speed chain would have to made if this mess were to go to actual production, not to mention all new derailleurs, and probably a whole new bike...) and tight-spaced gearing do not seem conducive to sandy/muddy/snowy romps on your fat bike.
ReplyDeleteIs maintaining your cadence really that important on a bike like this?
Wolf.
It doesn't make sense to me, either -- but gear junkies are probably getting excited for it. I believe it will happen. From what I've read, it uses a current 11-sp. chain to mesh with the 11-sp. cogs -- it just adds two more. But I've heard that the ultra-narrow 11-sp. chains can be pretty fussy and not so good for more rugged applications, which I'd think a Fat Bike would be.
DeleteI'm not even sold on 11. Maybe I'm just a metric guy, but I'm happy with ten - even when that's 5X2 :-)
ReplyDeleteI have a 2x10, but I don't feel any different with that than 2x9, or 7, 6 or 5 for that matter.
DeleteIt's like with razorblades from Gilette or Wilkinson. There was a TV advertisement about 10 years ago where Gilette was mocking Wilkinson because they introduced a 4-blade refill. Gilette was still making refills made out of 3 blades back then. Now guess what? Gilette, nowadays, has a 5-blade refill. Creating products which the world does not ask for or need, that seems the only way for big companies to be able to make money. I am a bit surprised that is it Phil who is making the first step here. Maybe it a con?
ReplyDeleteBtw i discovered your blog last week and must really say that your posts are really, really good!
I was a little surprised it was Phil Wood, too -- but like the article said, it was more of a concept. If it gets enough attention, though, somebody will pick it up.
DeleteNine is still my limit. I think eight is still the "sweet spot" that combines gearing choices with relative durability (i.e., chain and sprocket life).
ReplyDelete