Home > Other Fun Stuff > Uncategorized

The Ixow Syncrobox Can Operate A Full Triple Drivetrain With A Single Shifter

28 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

synchrobox-2

Ixow, the company that brought us the Stempark at the Taipei show, is showing the idea of the Synchrobox. Designed to operate an entire 3×9 Shimano drivetrain with a single shifter, they say it can help folks that have trouble figuring out two different shifters that are on most bikes.

The company says that the proof that people want this is the proliferation of 1×11 drivetrains, saying most riders only want to operate one shifter. The device mounts in the front triangle, and has an integrated front derailleur. Two cables come from the shifter and go to the device, and a third cable goes from the device to the rear derailleur.

Currently just a concept, it is not yet priced or released. What do you think? Is the allure of 1x drivetrains using only one shifter, or is it the simplicity of the drivetrain? Would a single shifter driving a full triple drivetrain be just as appealing and easy to use? Let us know in the comments, and click more to see a picture of the device and shifter…

 synchroboxsynchrobox-1

www.ixow.com

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NASH
NASH
9 years ago

Good for persons with a disability reducing their ability to use both hands. However if have difficulty figuring out how two shifters work you may have a different type of disability that this wont mitigate.

Gunnstein
Gunnstein
9 years ago

Not sure it is a good idea in gerenal, other than for one-handed riders, but if you accept the premise then the solution, with the combined shiftbox/front derailer, seems pretty elegant.

pfs
pfs
9 years ago

Considering the market this is aimed at I think an internal shifting hub would be a better choice. It’s probably simpler to adjust. They are incredibly durable. And they are stupidly easy to operate. While this idea is neat, I just don’t see it being better than the current options.

Veganpotter
Veganpotter
9 years ago

Ha…pretty simple and stupid design so far. At least as a teaser. I could draw the outside of a gearbox crank too and say it’ll have the range of a triple AND a 10-50 cassette with a built cassette. Oh…and it works with one cable, has no friction in the gearbox and weighs less than a typical carbon crank

Veganpotter
Veganpotter
9 years ago

Using an existing triple and 9speed rear…I can’t imagine this shifting well to avoid gear inch overlap. Your front derailleur would need to be shifter a lot with your rear when mountain biking on rolling terrain

groghunter
groghunter
9 years ago

I’m sure there’s a segment of the tandem market that would dig the hell out of this: shortening that RD cable will make things work better for them. The problem is that Di2 or wireless is far better than this for that problem.

Still, until there’s a cheap Di2 solution, or for people who want a mechanical solution this might be a good asnwer.

Me, i want the improved chain retention, & don’t want a bike scary enough on the downs to take advantage of a triple on the ups, so not my cup of tea.

craigsj
craigsj
9 years ago

Riders aren’t choosing 1×11 because they can’t figure out how to operate a front derailleur and losing the front derailleur is actually a liability in some full suspension designs. Not being able to control them independently is deal-killer for proper FS operation. For novice riders on hardballs that require wide range gearing then maybe but those don’t want to spend money and they increasingly don’t need front shifting.

I doubt there’s a tandem rider anywhere who needs a crutch like this.

b
b
9 years ago

Would this be UCI-legal? I could definitely see top pros making the switch to gain that edge over the competition. And of course, for us regular riders, it would be nothing short of a paradigm shift. Shut up and take my money!!

Luiggi
Luiggi
9 years ago

I believe this has been posted before, but it’s maybe one of those deja-vu moments… I recall reading something about this kind of mechanical synchronization between both derailleurs maybe 10 years ago…

Maybe somebody with better memory could shine some more light here.

i
i
9 years ago

The appeal of 1x to me is not having a front derailleur. I could care less about only having one shifter. Di2 will probably make it’s way to XT by the time this gets to market; if Ultegra Di2 is any indication of how prices will compare, I’d guess that would be competitive with this and work better (not to mention coming from a known company with pretty high quality standards).

Jesse Edwards
Jesse Edwards
9 years ago

“Oh cool!”

– said no mountain bikers, ever.

josh
josh
9 years ago

EGS syncroshift. 1990’s tech later bought by Shimano.

Source: http://www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/EGS_derailleurs_page_2.html

Ron G.
Ron G.
9 years ago

“i” nailed it (not me, “i”). The reason I (that’s me) ponied up for 1X11 is to get rid of the front derailleur, not the shifter. And I’ll bet that’s pretty much the same across the board–anyone who’s willing to cough up that much for a drivetrain is probably a fairly experienced rider, someone who already knows how to shift, and who understands the drawbacks of front shifting. We’re not abandoning front shifting because it hurts our little brains to use all those gear combinations, but because front derailleurs are crude and imprecise.

This effort seems a little long on assumption and a little short on market research.

nik H
nik H
9 years ago
OregonSS
OregonSS
9 years ago

Someone really missed the point about the appeal of a “one-by” drivetrain. This offers all the dropped/sucked chains, noise, poor shifting and extra pound of running a triple…while also adding a heavier (and insanely complicated looking) shifter.

delquattro
delquattro
9 years ago

Personally, I want to get rid of dérailleurs completely, and their weaknesses; chain suck, maladjustment, broken dérailleur hangers, etc.

I looked into the Rohloff Speedhub, but it is incompatible with my full suspension’s rear triangle.

I love innovation in bicycles, though, which is why I’m not a Luddite when it comes to the possibility that a generator could replace the crankset, an electric motor could replace the cogset and wires to replace the chain.

Kudos to Ixow for tormenting Luddites.

Ronin
Ronin
9 years ago

OK, why not just hack Di2 so it just selects the right gear for you based on cadence and heart rate or whatever you choose. Auto mode. No, cruise control.
You could just put your feet up and head out on the highway….oh hold on.

Gunnstein
Gunnstein
9 years ago

@delquattro Such a generator-motor drivetrain bike exists already: http://www.mandofootloose.com/

However the energy loss in such a system is major. From what I read, 80% efficiency is about the best you can ever hope for, and 50% is quite likely. Compare to the chain drive which they say can be up to 98% efficient. So you discard a lot of your power, or to put it another way, you get more exercise. But I guess you can do things like continuously variable, automatic gearing easily.

Veganpotter
Veganpotter
9 years ago

Gunnstein…a Rohloff hub has over 97% efficiency. I can imagine that that system could possibly be employed into a crank body. It would also center the weight which would be nice for climbing and would negate the slightly more difficult flat fixes. Personally, I’d love a Rohloff but if I got one, I’d want at least 3 of them for other bikes…that keeps me from getting one of them. I also don’t like the fact that you’ve gotta really back off of the power to shift and in some gears…practically stop pedaling.

***Plus with a Rohloff, you get INSANE reliability. Imagine getting over 30,000miles without doing anything but changing your chainring, cog and chain. Some people have gotten well over 50,000 without any servicing.

Gunnstein
Gunnstein
9 years ago

@Veganpotter If that is true (source?) remember that the losses of the Rohloff must be added to the losses of the chain, so if both our numbers are correct, with a Rohloff bike you first lose 2% to the chain, and then you lose 3% of the remainder to the hub. Not that I care, I’ve got an 8-speed IGH on one of my bikes and I’m very happy with it.

I think my main point was that pretty much anything will be more efficient than a generator-motor drivetrain. Possibly excluding a propeller driven bike, but I’m not betting on it.

Veganpotter
Veganpotter
9 years ago

It was a conclusive measurement comparing their hub to a normal drivetrain. Their numbers admit a normal drivetrain is slightly better in perfect conditions which isn’t always the case. Its also nice to not have to clean a derailleur and if you’re willing to give up a little more friction…you can run a belt drive. You lose power but you basically don’t have to think about chain wear and in the case of a dirty chain, vs a dirty belt(it won’t get that dirty) can be more efficient Remember…you also have the benefit of a perfect chainline all the time.

***I had a Nuvinci for a while. I loved it in the winter. Its much easier than cleaning a rear mech. However, the drivetrain drag was TERRIBLE, it was really heavy and luckily…I never got a flat with it. I did like that you can pedal as hard as you want while “shifting” their planetary gear system.

anonymous
anonymous
9 years ago

@veganpotter
Uhh, in 30,000 miles, what exactly am I changing besides chainring, cassette and chain in a derailleur system?

Are you seriously implying derailleur mechanisms need maintenance or replacement over that kind of mileage?

Gunnstein
Gunnstein
9 years ago

@Veganpotter You’re preaching to the choir, as I said, I like IHGs.

Bringing out the old “Bicycling Science”, 3rd ed: It says the best roller chains are about 98.5% efficient. If my math is correct, then a Rohloff plus a chain is then 0.985 x 0.97 = 0.955, i.e. 95.5 % efficiency. Or did you mean that a complete Rohloff system has 97% of the efficiency of a pure chain drive? Anyway, if we’re arguing numbers we need to know if the 97% you quote are for the hub alone, or for hub + chain.

For the generator-motor drivetrain they say 50% with cheap components, and 80% “or more” with “projected future” optimum components.

The book is quoting several different studies on drive efficiencies. Interestingly, one of them concludes that chainline impact on efficiency is “negligible”. And also that lubricant has “almost no effect”. For chains, there are various results from about 88 to 99% (depending on power input and number of teeth on cogs). For a 3-speed hub plus chain, 87-95%. For a 7-speed, 86-93%. The 97% you quote does seem within the realm of the possible, then, though a bit high.

For the NuVinci I have read ca. 90% efficiency somewhere, no source. I tried the eletric automatic edition of it once, pretty weird but works fine.

Enough number nerding for one day, good night.

WheelSmith408
WheelSmith408
9 years ago

Gripshift=NO!!!

Velociraptor
Velociraptor
9 years ago

Gripshifts are awesome.

Veganpotter
Veganpotter
9 years ago

Their study included a full drivetrain…that means a chain. After all, you can’t really test a cassette hub without a chain. This was a German study…not run by Fox News scientists:)

Gunnstein
Gunnstein
9 years ago

@Veganpotter You could test the chain drive separately and then subtract it from the chain+hub test. I hope it wasn’t Rohloff themselves doing the testing, but even so I trust them more than Fox 🙂

Also nice to know what power they were testing with, since the chain-only studies I mentioned found big differences at different power levels (more power = more efficient). And we need to know what their chainring and cogs were, since the higher the number of teeth, the better the efficiency. (Should probably ask about sunspot activity and moon phase, too!)

Aaaaanyway, bikes are very very efficient vehicles, with the exception of generator-motor drivetrains, it seems.

Adventure-Biker
9 years ago

Interesting read about chain vs belt efficiency:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/chain-drive-or-belt-drive-whos-faster

Anyway… I’m still running a 3×10 drivetrain w/ 2 shifters and I like it. I’m not into the 1x thing as of yet. It simply wouldn’t suit my varied riding style(s) and terrain. I like the idea of an internally geared hub but they’re expensive!!! And what’s this about not shifting under full load? That could possibly be a deal breaker…

As for the system outlined in this article…. Well….no thanks.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.