-
-
-
-
-
Long story short, the biggest effect is it somewhat complicates making the tension even. Not that hard to take into account though.
The tieing and soldering is supposedly a hangover from the penny-farthing days when a broken spoke could be quite the hazard. The tradition continued because it seemed possibly worthwhile, until someone applied some empiricism.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I am obviously an interloper - I wouldn't ride fixed, or even ss, if you paid me.
And the closest I've ever been to London is Paris ;)
I'd probably still be hanging around here if it wasn't even about bikes - the way this place has just continued as if Facebook and Reddit never happened is astounding.
I fucking love that. It's a credit to one and all.
-
The idea was to address a shortcoming of derailer drivetrains, in order to maximise their unmatched efficiency.
If efficiency (and weight, for that matter) wasn't a prime consideration, if it was only just about maintaining a nice cadence, the project would've been modifying some Ergolevers to shift a NuVinci.
-
-
-
-
You probably wouldn't understand if you're not one of those folks into close ratios, but here's the deal - the physical limitations of a derailer drivetrain (few rings, many cogs) impose a suboptimal situation regarding the gaps between gears.
Everyone is familiar with the way cassette tooth counts are spaced - with gaps of say, 4t, 3t, 2t, 2t, 1t, 1t, 1t, etc. If you plot the resulting ratios, you find that once you're down to 1t gaps, the gaps between ratios widen as you go faster, which is the opposite of desirable, given that air resistance is proportional to speed cubed.
My half-step concept halfway fixes this, making the gaps pretty close to consistent. Of course, nobody would ever bother to shift this manually, but it might be worthwhile if an electronic system could take care of it. I had an Arduino programmed to control a couple of servos to suit, but there was no way to ascertain the viability of it without CAD-optimised front shifting.
The two big rings could be spaced about 6mm apart, and perhaps timed shifts with the aid of a crank position sensor could be smooth and reliable enough for it to be a goer, although timed shifts could only happen once per rev given the 1t ring difference.
-
-
-
The fact that this sort of withering contempt from anyone inclined to deliver it is thoroughly, incontrovertibly justified, proper, and yet pathetically insufficient to convey the astronomical quantities of scorn deserved by such a raving gang of unhinged spivs, which constitutes the'leadership' of one of the two major parties doing battle via FPTP to control the nation, should be cause for a sense of horrified forboding.
But every new horror is just the new normal after five minutes these days
-
-
-
If the string is too stretchy
I have a spool of Kevlar twine I bought off eBay years ago... Wasn't expensive and comes in handy now and then.
The original purpose was for a DIY electronic shifting setup I was working on, to wrap around servo-mounted spools and run through short lengths of housing to the derailers in place of normal cables.
That much of the idea seemed to be a goer, but the whole point of the project was to enable a half-step triple (38/52/53) - I'd established it could all fit on a double crank with the two big rings really close together and the small ring only slightly inboard of standard... It looked like a winner.
But of course it required a bespoke FD cage and double big ring (the proof of concept setup I did was too flexy and obviously lacked shift-assist cutouts and ramps). Would've been nice though; that chainring combo turns the upwardly-curving line of gear ratio vs gear number into a nearly straight line.

Ooh, big ethical flex