Reinventing the wheel - Cannondale AI

[PH]

Came across this while browsing for something else, as you do.
Reading past the marketing blurb, it appears to be a offset rear triangle. I know this has been done before, but have any of the big producers played with it? Cannondale are only using it on some cyclocross bikes and the stronger rear wheel seems to be a byproduct of the desire for shorter chainstays, but who knows maybe it'll catch on.
https://cannondale.zendesk.com/hc/en-us ... tegration-

[531colin]

Not just the rear triangle, they are moving the entire drivetrain 6mm to the right. (Crankset, cassette, F. & R. mechs.)
They say they are keeping the same "Q" factor, but I don't see how that works?

[nigelnightmare]

Inspired Cycle Engineering ICE have been doing that for at least 10 years with their Trikes & the B1, B2, B3 bikes.

[PH]

Inspired Cycle Engineering ICE have been doing that for at least 10 years with their Trikes & the B1, B2, B3 bikes.

I know this has been done before, but have any of the big producers played with it?

[Brucey]

'lopsided Q' is hardly a new thing either; anyone riding campag Nuovo Record back in the day would have had that, and I'm sure they were not the first.

'148mm boost' uses a 52mm chainline onto an 11s cassette. This can (usually, they say) be accommodated within the Q of a normal MTB crankset. There are numerous alternative versions (King boost, kong boost, the syntace evo 6 etc etc etc) some of which use an offset back end with 148mm spacing. I can only suppose that these must have a wider chainline than 52mm too. TBH I have not bothered keeping up with all this, since such changes appear to be becoming more and more ephemeral in nature, swept aside and forgotten as the next new thing comes along.

BTW I have had absolutely no intention of buying a new MTB for some years now; there is a constant stream of 'new standards' emerging, all of which are manufacturer-specific and therefore not really standards at all. Built-in obsolescence is the only inevitable result of all this messing about. I can still very easily get spare parts for my (now ancient) MTBs, but I doubt very much that this will be the case when recent/current bikes are of comparable age.

cheers

[MikeF]

Not just the rear triangle, they are moving the entire drivetrain 6mm to the right. (Crankset, cassette, F. & R. mechs.)
They say they are keeping the same "Q" factor, but I don't see how that works?

Shouldn't the saddle be offset 6mm to the right as well to compensate?

"Asymmetric integration" - a new buzz word?

[pwa]

Maybe it is just the photo, but it looks like the cranks are over to the right in relation to the seatpost. So the cyclist has to pedal in an asymmetric position. Right leg angled outwards more than the left. Do they supply redesigned humans to go with these?

[reohn2]

Not just the rear triangle, they are moving the entire drivetrain 6mm to the right. (Crankset, cassette, F. & R. mechs.)
They say they are keeping the same "Q" factor, but I don't see how that works?

Nor me,the words heel and strike spring readily to mind,especially for people like me with big feet.

[pwa]

Not just the rear triangle, they are moving the entire drivetrain 6mm to the right. (Crankset, cassette, F. & R. mechs.)
They say they are keeping the same "Q" factor, but I don't see how that works?

Nor me,the words heel and strike spring readily to mind,especially for people like me with big feet.

I think they are addressing that particular issue by, bizarrely, just moving the right foot outwards, so you cycle in a lopsided way.

[reohn2]

I think they are addressing that particular issue by, bizarrely, just moving the right foot outwards, so you cycle in a lopsided way.

I missed that one,didn't read all the posts .

[pwa]

I think they are addressing that particular issue by, bizarrely, just moving the right foot outwards, so you cycle in a lopsided way.

I missed that one,didn't read all the posts .

I'm not surprised you missed it. It seems like a mad way to address a mechanical problem. The basic reason why there is a limit to the potential width of a rear hub, and the space available for sprockets, dishing and all the rest is the human physique. We need to sit comfortably and rotate our legs without catching heels on something. And we need to sit straight. Many designers must have wondered about the "solution" that Cannondale seem to have found but then discounted it as ridiculous.

[Brucey]

.... It seems like a mad way to address a mechanical problem....

but not new at all, this has been going on for years, hence my earlier 'lopsided Q' comment.

In fact at one time you would have struggled to find a bike for sale that was actually symmetrical....

cheers

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Crank symmetry?

[recordacefromnew]

Not just the rear triangle, they are moving the entire drivetrain 6mm to the right. (Crankset, cassette, F. & R. mechs.)
They say they are keeping the same "Q" factor, but I don't see how that works?

Quite easily, I would have thought.

What is important to note is that the system is allegedly for 2 rings. For a double chainset, the outer ring is typically c4mm inboard that of a triple that is otherwise identical, so by shifting the "whole drive train" outboard by 6mm, we are only talking about an outer ring that is c2mm outboard that of a triple.

Same Q? The fact is different mtb chainset models with the same chainline, from Shimano e.g., can have Q differing by 10mm, so eliminating/hiding/pushing 2mm, is really neither here nor there.

Obsolescence, sure. But for someone who pays £X000 for an XC bike made of plastic, that of the rear triangle/wheel should be the last of their worries!

[Samuel D]

Surely the proprietary cranks (“our new Ai HollowGram spider”) fix the offset by the time you get to the pedals? I’d expect the pedals to be equidistant from the centreline (until you switch to Shimano cranks or whatever).

Even if they’re not, 6 mm of offset is not great: less than a quarter of an inch. I have seen nominally symmetrical bicycles with more crank asymmetry than that (as visually estimated by crank clearance at the chainstays), whether deliberately or accidentally via the vagaries of square tapers.

Mind you, that wouldn’t be much fun for humans who happen to be asymmetric in the non-complementary direction, which I suppose is about half of us.

But insomuch that 6 mm is more significant in wheel dish than crank position, this idea seems to have some merit.

Not for me, though. Proprietary bicycle ‘standards’ depress me.

Regarding the Q-factor: if you parse their sentence carefully, you will see it can easily be interpreted as saying a “perfect” Q-factor is maintained, not a specific measurement. Experience has taught me to read marketing materials cynically. A lot is hidden behind weasel words.