ship wrote:
> 1. HUB GEARS.
> One thing I'm *not* happy about though, is the hub-gear suggestions.
> The problem is that a) they are *extremely* heavy [atleast mine was]
> and b) they are less efficient - i.e. [Cue spectre's large, lardy arses
> over-taking]
Perhaps you have a different idea of "extremely heavy" to me, but if you
take a hub gear on its own and compare it to the hub it replaces, extra
chainwheels, sprockets, tensioners and mechanisms there's not actually
going to be much in it. The other post in this thread comparing a
Rohloff isn't really that sensible as a Rohloff is a 14 speed hub which
necessarily has rather more gubbins involved than a 7 or fewer speed.
Something like a SRAM 3 speed, which would be perfectly adequate around
London, needn't be any heavier.
Make sure you're comparing just hubs, and not heavy bikes overall that
happen to have hubs. For example, the Orbit Orion City 7 (see
http://www.orbit-cycles.co.uk/orion.shtml) is /not/ a corpulent bike,
despite having a chaincase, hub gear, hub dynamo and lights and a rack
all built in from the start. See
http://www.orbit-cycles.co.uk/orion.shtml for a review, it's an ideal
commuter bike.
> Look, I'm mid 40s, medium build and pretty fit. I dont like breaking
> sweat going to work, but I cycle hard and once I get going I often only
> wear a shirt on upper body, even in mid winter!
>
> But I do NOT like fat-arsed women wearing many layers of clothing
> over-taking me, apparently without even breaking sweat!
> Okay so it only happens rarely... but IT SHOULDNT HAPPEN AT ALL!!
See my previous comments re: my Brompton, which has a 3 speed hub. I
don't recall /ever/ being overtaken by "fat-arsed women wearing many
layers of clothing" when I've been underway, and I overtake far more
people than overtake me, despite most of them having derailluers.
Ditching a derailleur for a hub is going to make little in the way of
speed difference for utility cycling. For serious sport, yes, you'd
lose a significant edge, but A to B stuff it's really not an issue, and
I say that as a rider of both hub and derailleur bikes who's coming up
for 40, medium build and (by typical standards) pretty fit.
OTOH, if you like replacing chains and cleaning and oiling sprockets to
waste your time /off/ the bike, go ahead and get a derailleur. For
commuting it's really not much help, if any.
> Also my hub gear bike was pretty difficult to set up correctly so that
> it changed gear cleanly. And finally the damned thing has
> now seized up completely.
My hub gear bike has never been at all difficult to set up correctly so
that it changes cleanly. Not something I can say for any derailleur
bike I've ever owned in comparison.
> HOWEVER I would be fascinated to know if anyone has any hard facts on
> this "efficiency" issue. How much faster would the same bike
> (yes, yes same rider, same everything) go if it had the a
> good-ish derailer vs if it had hub gears. Put another way, what is the
> energy efficiency rate for different types of gears?!
> But I want to be as AS UPRIGHT AS POSSIBLE (for my back) even if it
> does slow me down. I am thinking about sticking on some swept-back
> handlebars...
Well, here's the rub. There's no point squeezing an extra percentage
point out of a derailleur just to throw it all away to wind resistance.
If you really want to go fast in comfort without crouching over the
bars then up your budget and get a recumbent. On uprights personally I
just sit upright and accept the losses, but if you want to milk every
last ounce of efficiency then you're going about it a strange way.
> And I want wheels whose bearings wont blow up after a year.
> I want brake cable that wont need replacing after 6 months to a year
> etc etc etc!
You want low maintenance, in other words. Has anyone told you about hub
gears? ;-)
Seriously, part of your problem is you want to have your cake and eat it
too, and that just isn't possible. If you want to move as efficiently
as possible that means losing day in, day out practicality, which is
itself important in commuting. You have to decide on a compromise point.
> 4. ADAPTABILITY
> One thing that has always TOTALLY hacked me off about bicycles
> is that they are *so* badly designed for doing your own thing.
> e.g. if I want to swap out my hub gears for derailerd gear - and why
> the
> heck not! But no, all kinds of sucking of teeth. Likewise if I want to
> change handle bars all the better made bikes seem to say no-way-hose!
> Drives me frickin nuts.
Again, you want your cake and eat it too. I've never seen a car where I
can swap a manual gearbox for an automatic, so why expect similar on a
bike? The problem is that a jack of all trades is a master of none:
when I'm touring I take my touring bike because it's best for the job.
Around town I take a folder, which is better for the job. If you have a
bike that does everything then the any particular things will be
compromised. There /are/ some good do-it-alls, like the Moulton APB and
Birdy Blue, but again you'll have to up your budget considerably.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
