Talk:Derailleur

message: I think these belong in a separate article due to their proprietary nature.  These are Shimano marketing/design constructs that should be titled as such, and they cloud the description of typical derailleurs (spring-loaded toward the low gears).
MM962 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-normal/Low-normal 

message: Referring to the opening of the article, I think there's a misunderstanding about what we mean when we talk about bicycle gears.  We're not suggesting that the sprockets are gears.  We're talking about the gear ratios created by sprockets with different numbers of teeth being connected by a driving chain.  Maybe we should talk about a 10-ratio machine rather than a 10-gear one, but I've never heard the sprockets described as anything else (except, collectively, a "block").  I didn't change anything, but I do feel the existing wording is a bit unnecessary, clarifying something which maybe doesn't need it. Pavel (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the we should acknowledge that the term "gears" is used flexable in the bike world to refer to both the gear ratios, and the individual sprockets, but that we should favour more technically accurate terminology in the article as more encyclopedic.  And stick to using the terms "gear ratios" and sprockets in the intro. --Keithonearth (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pavel.  In the bicycle world, 'gear' is synonymous with 'gear ratio'.  As such it is determined by two sprockets (cogs) not one, and should never be used to refer to a single sprocket.  We should make that clear by defining the term in the intro.  Then, like Keith suggests, endeavor to use the correct terms in the body of the article. I made a similar change to the intro in Bicycle gearing.  I think - at least for now - a simply change in the last sentence of paragraph one might do it, but let me read the rest of the article before I commit myself. --Dmforcier (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gears" versus "sprockets." 

message: The article as it now is credits the Campognolo as creating the first parallelogram RD in the early 1950s.  It has a blog entry as a reference: .  I'm trusting a published book over that, and change it to say that Campy introduced the first commercially successful parallelogram RD, and some other details.  Frank Berto, in The Dancing Chain, specifies that Nivex and JIC made parallelogram RDs and Francesco Ghiggini had a pre-existing patent. --Keithonearth (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Parallelogram Rear Derailleur 

message: * Full suspension MTBs seem to need bottom pull designs as (a) the routing will be stable and (b) keeps the cabling out of the way of any rear suspension. Certainly that holds with the one I have looked at; we'd need to go through more datasets (bike shops) to be sure. One big complication of FS bikes is that the mount almost needs to be below the chainrings, rather than above it, so that various pivoting chainstays don't come into contact. 
* Recent MTB derailleurs appear to have routing to support top or bottom pull, as mentioned in the article. Interestingly, this makes them heavier. So why have them? I suspect it may be to reduce stock keeping units in the bike shops, the risk of someone ordering the wrong part, and reduces manufacturing costs by having only one thing to make. Any hard data here would be useful. SteveLoughran (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  top-pull vs bottom-pull front derailleurs 

message: There is (or was) a rather lengthy section on hub gears that sounded like it was written by a hub-gear salesman.  I removed most of it.  First, there is a full article on hub gears. The info in the section was either duplicated or belonged there. (if not in that article, why not?) Second, the section was so intent on telling you why hub gears are better that it never even told you what they are!  Third, the section is totally off topic.  [Kindly read the article name.]  I'm in favor of removing even the heading, since nothing about hub gears is pertinent to this article. Opinions?
Also, I moved the 'Using' section to below 'Modern' section.  The History and Modern sections are written to flow from one to the other and Using simply got in the way.  I'm not all that thrilled that it now appears so late in the article, but it would take some re-write to make it work.  (Not that a re-write isn't needed.) Dmforcier (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone. Dmforcier (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hub gears et al. 

message: I suppressed the pic of an electronic FD for two reasons: 1) it runs across three main sections and just looks sloppy. 2) It is the lead picture of the Electronic Gear-Shifting System article referenced right next to it, and only one click away.
Andrew, do you really think there's plenty of room for it?  Look at the page layout.  I'll leave it up to you. Dmforcier (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any requirement for pictures to fit inside a single section: even the first picture runs past the end of the history section. Since we have no control over the screen size, resolution, or font size that our readers use, we have pretty limited control over how any page will be rendered. I also don't see the fact that the picture is used elsewhere as relevant. It is a picture of derailleur after all, of a type not pictured elsewhere in the article, not a hub gear or something else off-topic. I actually did look at the page layout before I restored the picture. Why would you suggest that I didn't? On my monitor, at 1600x1200 resolution, there is a sea of text and I can just barely arrange the page so that only part of the picture in question is visible at the same time as part of the closest other picture. I expect the situation to be even more so on my laptop. That is how I would define "plenty of room". If there came a time when the article was crowded with great derailleur pictures, I would agree that it isn't the best picture in the world, but we are far from there at this point. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Electronic FD pic 

message: It would be good to have a look at how the two cogs in derailleurs affect efficiency, and also how having the chain not perpendicular to the axis of the sprockets affects it. It is claimed by fixed gear riders that fixed gears are more mechanically efficient, but I'd like to see a number put on that, as i suspect its less than 2-4%.
Also, because chain efficiency is related to the curvature of the sprockets (smaller sprockets bend the chain more and so it operates less efficiently), derailleurs are more efficient in that sense than fixed gears. but by how much?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazalc (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently looking into this question of gearing efficiency in Bicycle gearing and have specifically bought several relevant books covering the topic. The information currently in that article appears to match the references, but I think there is scope for providing more detail. Murray Langton (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency of deraileurs 

message: Why is this argument here?  Mentioning that someone is trying to change the spelling to something simpler seems notable - mentioning that they're unsuccessful seems argumentative and un-encyclopedic.  173.13.137.19 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning that someone is trying to change the spelling of something, without mentioning that they have not yet been successful, seems to be supporting them and un-encyclopedic. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Derailleur' vs 'Derailer'  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Derailleur gears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205181751/http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk:80/~hadland/page35.htm to http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/page35.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: checked Murray Langton (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Derailleur gears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602002354/http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/technical_service/faq_s/general_faq_s/what_is_the_difference2.html to http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/technical_service/faq_s/general_faq_s/what_is_the_difference2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823000655/http://www.sram.com/sram/road/technologies/187 to http://www.sram.com/sram/road/technologies/187
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that someone should add info on rear derailleur clutches. They’ve been out for several years now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:7607:C200:1127:416E:8ED4:BDB (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Started -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Clutches

message: I think the picture in the history section, of a "modern road bicycle drivetrain" should be moved to the lede, as it matches the scope of the article better than the Shimano 600 FD now in that position, and because it doesn't belong in the history section anyway. Unless maybe is there a preference for photographs over drawings? 
I do like the front derailleur picture and have no particular opinion on where it should go.
Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede picture