Consensus on Rohloff 14-speed hubs?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Jack Kessler, Apr 20, 2006.

  1. Jack Kessler

    Jack Kessler Guest

    They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    for some uses but not others?
     
    Tags:


  2. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    Jack Kessler wrote:
    > They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    > but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    > for some uses but not others?
    >
    >


    All of the above. Actually, most who use them have good things to say
    about them. Pete Cresswell will probably give you a good review if he
    sees this thread.

    Greg

    --
    "All my time I spent in heaven
    Revelries of dance and wine
    Waking to the sound of laughter
    Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
     
  3. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    Jack Kessler wrote
    >
    > They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    > but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    > for some uses but not others?


    I've had two bikes with Rohloff hubs (still have one) and my sweetie
    has one. We both have bikes equipped with deralleurs and with other
    internal gear hubs. We are convinced there is no better bicycle
    drivetrain than the Rohloff Speedhub. If I could afford to put one on
    every one of my bikes, I'd do it.

    Advantages:
    Huge gear range
    Consistent intervals between successive gears
    Fast and positive shifts
    Shift while pedaling or not, while rolling or at a standstill
    Almost no maintenance
    The only gearhub with a QR axle
    Dramatically reduced chain wear vs. a derailleur
    Dishless rear wheel
    Indexing is the hub; shift cables need little to no adjustment
    Makes the bike look nicer

    There are a few drawbacks to the Rohloff hub. Lots of folks who don't
    use one are quick to point out extra weight and power losses, but in my
    experience neither of these this is noticeable or significant compared
    to the hub's benefits or its other drawbacks.

    These are the drawbacks as I see them, in no particular order:

    The hub comes only in 32 hole drilling-- so fitting one with a 16",
    20", 27", 28", or 36" rim could prove tricky. Despite claims to the
    contrary, 32 spokes are no subsitute for 48 spokes, even if the wheel
    is dishless. I modified my hub shell to accept 48 spokes, but that was
    a project well beyond the ability of a typical bike shop, let alone a
    home mechanic.

    If your bike is not set up with Rohloff OEM dropouts, it will require
    you to use the supplied torque arm attachment. This works well enough,
    and it allows wheel changes without tools, but it is not so elegant to
    look at. At least it's not as clunky-looking as a derailleur and
    low-hanging chain.

    If your bike has vertical dropouts, you'll have to use the supplied
    chain tensioner, which introduces several of the less welcome
    characteristics of a deraillaur.

    If you use drop bars, there is no ideal way to mount the shifter.
    (Score yet another one for flat bars.)

    There is a hiccup when shifting between gears 7 and 8 while applying
    power.

    Installing the shifter cables for the external shift box is an odious
    chore. Typical braze-on cable stops and guides on the frame don't work
    right. There is a small diameter internal shift cable which does not
    have any commonly available substitute.

    Shifting takes more force at the twist grip than a derailleur system.

    All those drawbacks do not give me a moment's pause in asserting that
    the Rohloff Speedhub is the single best bicycle transmission money can
    buy. I highly recommend it to anybody who isn't shocked by the price.
    I'll admit almost every cyclist I know is shocked by the price, though.


    Chalo Colina
     
  4. Jack Kessler wrote:
    > They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    > but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    > for some uses but not others?


    After putting one on a Moots brevet bike, I'd say heavy, expensive,
    complicated, needing a frame that can adjust chain tension but it
    worked really well, easy to use, very versitile.
     
  5. Per G.T.:
    >> They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    >> but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    >> for some uses but not others?


    They're ungodly expensive, they add two pounds to the bike, they're noisy, and
    they're less efficient.

    After owning one for a couple of years, I bought a second one.

    Here's my original review. Nothing's changed except that either/or I've
    gotten used to the noise or the noise diminishes with use - or maybe
    I'm in better enough shape that I'm not using gears 1-7 (the noisy ones)
    as much.
    =====================================================================

    Pros:

    - Wide shifts:
    Probably a substitute for proper technique, but I can clean inclines that I
    couldn't before. Hammer in to it in, say, gear 8, then jump down to 4, then to 1
    as needed.

    Also, on long climbs I like to alternate in and out of the saddle which, for me,
    is a 3 or 4 gear shift on each change. With the der I used to do it a lot less
    frequently that I really like and in the spirit of "Gee, I sure hope I don't
    miss this shift and take the saddle horn up my butt (again...)".

    Now I just snap those wide shifts without even thinking about it. Any time, any
    place.- I'm always in the right gear, since shifting is essentially trivial;
    seems like shifts take less than a fiftieth of a second.


    - No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small branches/grass
    wrapped around the cog/der.


    - It *seems* pretty-much bombproof. Time will tell, but I was spending more time
    than I cared to adjusting my der and bending a cog wheel while riding was a
    PITA.


    - Greatly-reduced frequency of missed shifts. "Reduced" and not "Zero" because
    there is a 'gotcha' between 7 and 8 dumps you into gear 14 if you forget and
    shift under load.

    It pops back into the intended gear as soon as the load comes off, but it's
    nothing you want to make a habit of doing.


    - Ability to shift down when stopped. I think I make more than my share of
    unplanned stops and I used to have to lift up the rear wheel and rotate the
    cranks to get down to a starting gear.

    Also, my technique sucks and probably won't get any better and it's nice to be
    able approach an object and slow way, way down before negotiating it without
    worrying about getting stuck in too high a gear to get over it.


    - I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds trivial,
    but I don't have any brain cells to spare.


    - Maybe not so much of a strength, but it should be mentioned somewhere that 14
    speeds are enough.

    My original 44-32-22 der setup took me from 18.5 to 104.

    With the Rohloff on a 44 I get 19.9 to 104.9 in nice even, uniform 13.8%
    increments. That's only one less gear and, since I never used 104 it's a wash
    for me.

    With the 38 that I've since gone over to it's 17.2 - 90.6.
    I don't get spun out in 90.6 until about 25 mph - and there's no way I can hold
    that speed for very long anyhow.

    I left the old 32 in the middle position just because it weighs next to nothing
    and, on a big bump sometimes the chain drops (you're supposed to have a
    front-der-like dingus up there to keep it from doing that ....but I never go
    around to getting one) the 32 catches the chain. Also allows shifting down
    to a usually-ludicrous 14.something if things get really bad....

    Cons:

    - It costs an arm and a leg.

    If my wife ever finds out I spent close to a grand on a rear wheel, she'll start
    to doubt my sanity.

    - This hub weighs a *lot*. It added 1.9 pounds to my already-heavy bike - same
    rim/tube/tire/spoke gauge.
    Anybody who says it only adds a pound must be using a really, *really* heavy
    cog/hub/der/shifter setup. I was using SRAM 9.0 with twist shifters.

    - The installation instructions could use a re-write. I'm no rocket scientist,
    and after studying them long enough I pulled it off - but it could have been a
    *lot* easier.

    - It's heavy. Are you ready for an 8-pound rear wheel?

    - The torque arm mounting that came with it was decidedly un-German (downright
    kludgey, I'd say...). Hose clamps!

    Also sometime during the first hundred miles the little clevis pin that held it
    all together disappeared. Wasn't a catastrophic failure because the normal
    riding pressure pushes everything together.... I probably installed the c-ring
    keeper wrong or something - but it seems like a weak point. Replaced it with a
    marine shackle set in LocTite.

    I have since discovered that there is a more elegant torque arm setup that
    Rohloff calls the "SpeedBone". Uses the disk brake mount and does not
    interfere with using a disk brake.


    - It's heavy.


    - It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with age, but
    it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.


    - It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.

    There's a web site somewhere (in German) that supposedly graphs a Rohloff
    against one of the Shimanos and claims no loss in most gears and 1-2% in the
    lower gears.

    I would disagree with that web site's figures.


    - Did I mention that it's heavy?

    ------------------------------------------------

    Bottom Line:

    This is definitely not for everybody and the torque arm thing bugged me until I
    got the more elegant replacement.

    Having said that, I find that me and the Rohloff are a good match.

    I've quickly gotten so used to getting any gear I want any time I want and never
    having to stop and pull brush/branches out of my rear der that I can't imagine
    going back.

    It also appeals to the exhibitionist in me...

    You, on the other hand, might hate the thing.

    Oh yeah, I almost forgot: it's heavy.
    =====================================================================
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  6. Per Chalo:
    >Consistent intervals between successive gears


    I suspect that, for a strong road rider, this could be a disadvantage.

    Being pathetically weak, I'll never know for sure.... but I suspect that some
    riders prefer a cluster of very tight gears up top and a couple of widely-spaced
    grannies at the bottom.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  7. In article <[email protected]>, (PeteCresswell)
    ([email protected]) wrote:
    > Per Chalo:
    > >Consistent intervals between successive gears

    >
    > I suspect that, for a strong road rider, this could be a disadvantage.
    >
    > Being pathetically weak, I'll never know for sure.... but I suspect that some
    > riders prefer a cluster of very tight gears up top and a couple of widely-spaced
    > grannies at the bottom.


    Part of me had been toying with the idea of setting one up with a half-
    step double chainset. Only toying, mind, as I don't have the spare 800+
    quid to carry out the experiment for real.

    --
    Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
    They came for Eamonn Holmes; I think I'm right in saying that I
    applauded.
     
  8. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per G.T.:
    >
    >>>They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    >>>but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    >>>for some uses but not others?

    >


    Watch your attributions. 'twasn't me that said that.

    >
    > They're ungodly expensive, they add two pounds to the bike, they're noisy, and
    > they're less efficient.


    Yeah, I built my entire last bike for the amount of a Rohloff.

    >
    > Pros:
    >
    > - Wide shifts:
    > Probably a substitute for proper technique, but I can clean inclines that I
    > couldn't before. Hammer in to it in, say, gear 8, then jump down to 4, then to 1
    > as needed.


    That's good to hear, I was wondering about that.

    >
    > - No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small branches/grass
    > wrapped around the cog/der.
    >


    Hmmmm, in 20 years of low gear mtn biking I've never taco'd a cog. I've
    spun the lowest cog on an old Suntour freewheel but that's about it.

    >
    > - It *seems* pretty-much bombproof. Time will tell, but I was spending more time
    > than I cared to adjusting my der and bending a cog wheel while riding was a
    > PITA.
    >
    >
    > - Greatly-reduced frequency of missed shifts. "Reduced" and not "Zero" because
    > there is a 'gotcha' between 7 and 8 dumps you into gear 14 if you forget and
    > shift under load.
    >
    > It pops back into the intended gear as soon as the load comes off, but it's
    > nothing you want to make a habit of doing.
    >
    >
    > - Ability to shift down when stopped. I think I make more than my share of
    > unplanned stops and I used to have to lift up the rear wheel and rotate the
    > cranks to get down to a starting gear.


    That's pretty cool, too.

    >
    > Also, my technique sucks and probably won't get any better and it's nice to be
    > able approach an object and slow way, way down before negotiating it without
    > worrying about getting stuck in too high a gear to get over it.
    >
    >
    > - I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds trivial,
    > but I don't have any brain cells to spare.
    >


    What about a 42 speed with a triple front?

    >
    > - Maybe not so much of a strength, but it should be mentioned somewhere that 14
    > speeds are enough.
    >
    > My original 44-32-22 der setup took me from 18.5 to 104.
    >
    > With the Rohloff on a 44 I get 19.9 to 104.9 in nice even, uniform 13.8%
    > increments. That's only one less gear and, since I never used 104 it's a wash
    > for me.
    >
    > With the 38 that I've since gone over to it's 17.2 - 90.6.


    That's pretty cool.


    > Also sometime during the first hundred miles the little clevis pin that held it
    > all together disappeared. Wasn't a catastrophic failure because the normal
    > riding pressure pushes everything together.... I probably installed the c-ring
    > keeper wrong or something - but it seems like a weak point. Replaced it with a
    > marine shackle set in LocTite.
    >
    > I have since discovered that there is a more elegant torque arm setup that
    > Rohloff calls the "SpeedBone". Uses the disk brake mount and does not
    > interfere with using a disk brake.
    >
    >
    > - It's heavy.
    >
    >
    > - It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with age, but
    > it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.


    That would bother me.

    >
    >
    > - It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.
    >


    That might bother me if it's noticeable. But now that I have a road
    bike it only took a couple of switches back and forth between my road
    bike and my mtn bike to not be bothered by the inefficiency of the low
    pressure tires on my mtn bike.

    Greg

    --
    "All my time I spent in heaven
    Revelries of dance and wine
    Waking to the sound of laughter
    Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
     
  9. Llatikcuf

    Llatikcuf Guest

    (PeteCresswell) wrote:

    > Pros:
    >
    > Snip <
    >
    > - No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small branches/grass
    > wrapped around the cog/der.
    >
    >


    In my years of biking rough trails, I have never taco'd a cog. How does
    one go about doing this?

    -nate
     
  10. Dear Jack,

    I'll let you know the results of my testing as soon as I find a used
    bike for under $100 that features a $1,000 Rohloff hub.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel
     
  11. In article
    <[email protected]>,
    "Jack Kessler" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    > but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    > for some uses but not others?


    I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
    it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
    sack of sugar weighs?

    --
    Michael Press
     
  12. On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:52:39 GMT, Michael Press
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article
    ><[email protected]>,
    > "Jack Kessler" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    >> but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    >> for some uses but not others?

    >
    >I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
    >it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
    >sack of sugar weighs?


    Dear Michael,

    Well, since you ask, it looks like that five pound sack of
    sugar weighs less than 2 pounds.

    In my case, a 5 pound sack of sugar weighs about 2.2% of the
    14-speed 2x7 bicycle and body that I just pushed up my daily
    hill.

    But a 14-speed 4.3 pound Rohloff wonder-hub probably doesn't
    add 4.3 pounds to a typical bicycle.

    We have to keep in mind that the Rohloff and its associated
    gizmos replace an existing freehub, cassette, derailleur,
    quick-release, cable, and shifter, plus the front
    derailleur, cable, shifter, and second chain-ring.

    Browsing through Nashbar, I see these weights:

    365 grams 8/9 speed shimano deore lx 8/9 freehub
    61 grams skewer to make same hang onto bike
    347 grams obese nashbar house brand 8-speed cluster
    265 grams shimano double ss tiagra 8/9 speed rear derailleur
    61 grams shimano sora double front derailleur

    .. . . hmm, can't find chain rings, switch to . . .
    http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=chainrings

    80 grams shimano 44 tooth chain ring

    .. . . too lazy to worry about shifters and cables

    (I'm sure that there are lighter and heavier combinations,
    just as I'm sure that experts will be appalled by my three
    minute mis-matched grab-bag of parts, but it's the thought
    that counts.)

    That's about 1.2 kg of old derailleur stuff, so a Rohloff
    enthusiast is replacing around 2.6 pounds of one kind of
    transmission for about 4.3 pounds of another, a net gain of
    1.7 pounds, plus or minus a few batches of cookies, to use
    our sugar-sack metric.

    So let's crank up a handy calculator . . .

    http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

    .. . . and send its standard rider up a 5% grade for an hour,
    hands on tops and so forth, and then add our 1.7 pound bag
    of sugar and do it again.

    I get 7.4 mph for both riders.

    Drat! Let's switch to less flexible calculator that offers
    the illusion of more precision . . .

    http://w3.iac.net/~curta/bp/velocity/velocity.html

    Put in the same 160 watts, use this site's slightly
    different defaults for the rest, tilt the road 5%,
    calculate, then add our 1.7 pound bag of sugar and calculate
    again . . .

    It looks like 7.5947 mph versus 7.5321, a loss of 0.0626
    miles in an hour, or about a 330 foot lead in 7.6 miles, a
    0.824% improvement for the kind of rider who's happy to put
    out 160 watts. (Rohloffs obviously aren't for racers.)

    I doubt that any remotely normal rider can tell the
    difference while just riding along if we slip a 1.7 pound
    lead weight into the bottom of his 18 to 21 pound bicycle.

    We can notice differences of a few grams when components are
    measured on electronic scales, but we're unlikely to notice
    when the state of our bowels, bladder, and water bottle
    cause our riding weight to vary far more.

    For me, the real weight problem of the Rohloff becomes
    apparent when I try to lift its $1,000 price tag.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel
     
  13. M-gineering

    M-gineering Guest

    Michael Press wrote:
    > In article
    > <[email protected]>,
    > "Jack Kessler" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    >> but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    >> for some uses but not others?

    >
    > I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
    > it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
    > sack of sugar weighs?
    >


    The hub (oem, without oil or skewer) weighs 1705 grams (3.75 lbs) ie 25
    grams more than a Nexus 8sp

    --
    ---
    Marten Gerritsen

    INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
    www.m-gineering.nl
     
  14. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    G.T. wrote:
    >
    > (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > >
    > > - I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds trivial,
    > > but I don't have any brain cells to spare.

    >
    > What about a 42 speed with a triple front?


    Rohloff specify a minimum primary gear ratio of 2.4:1. That's 38/16,
    and it buys you some very low gearing as Pete pointed out. Some folks
    disregard the rating and fit a triple or a Schlumpf Mountain-Drive, but
    I would not want to risk lunching my Rohloff that way.

    For heavyweight riders (220+ lbs.), or for tandemists, they specify a
    minimum 40/16 primary ratio. I weigh a LOT more than 220 lbs, and I
    use 205mm cranks, so I use 44/16 primary gearing on my Rohloff, in the
    interest of a long happy time together.

    > > - It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with age, but
    > > it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.

    >
    > That would bother me.


    Mine and my honey's are not especially noisy, though they do make more
    noise than a derailleur with plastic pulleys. The amount of noise in
    the louder gears like #7 is about the same as aluminum derailleur
    pulleys, but it is a totally different kind of noise-- sort of a low
    grumbly sound rather than the high rattly noises that derailleur
    systems make.

    > > - It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.

    >
    > That might bother me if it's noticeable. But now that I have a road
    > bike it only took a couple of switches back and forth between my road
    > bike and my mtn bike to not be bothered by the inefficiency of the low
    > pressure tires on my mtn bike.


    I don't feel it. I understand that the fraction of power lost to gear
    friction is related to the gross power level, and that as gross power
    increases the percentage of loss decreases. I may not go all that
    fast, but I do put a lot of wattage through that hub, so maybe that has
    something to do with why I don't notice extra losses vs. my derailleur
    bikes.

    For what it's worth, I feel like I lose a whole gear to inefficiency
    when I ride one of my Nexus 7 equipped bikes, but my Sachs Spectro 7
    speed bikes don't feel any lossier to me than my derailleur bikes.

    Chalo Colina
     
  15. On 21 Apr 2006 15:17:17 -0700, "Chalo"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >G.T. wrote:
    >>
    >> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    >> >
    >> > - I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds trivial,
    >> > but I don't have any brain cells to spare.

    >>
    >> What about a 42 speed with a triple front?

    >
    >Rohloff specify a minimum primary gear ratio of 2.4:1. That's 38/16,
    >and it buys you some very low gearing as Pete pointed out. Some folks
    >disregard the rating and fit a triple or a Schlumpf Mountain-Drive, but
    >I would not want to risk lunching my Rohloff that way.
    >
    >For heavyweight riders (220+ lbs.), or for tandemists, they specify a
    >minimum 40/16 primary ratio. I weigh a LOT more than 220 lbs, and I
    >use 205mm cranks, so I use 44/16 primary gearing on my Rohloff, in the
    >interest of a long happy time together.
    >
    >> > - It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with age, but
    >> > it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.

    >>
    >> That would bother me.

    >
    >Mine and my honey's are not especially noisy, though they do make more
    >noise than a derailleur with plastic pulleys. The amount of noise in
    >the louder gears like #7 is about the same as aluminum derailleur
    >pulleys, but it is a totally different kind of noise-- sort of a low
    >grumbly sound rather than the high rattly noises that derailleur
    >systems make.
    >
    >> > - It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.

    >>
    >> That might bother me if it's noticeable. But now that I have a road
    >> bike it only took a couple of switches back and forth between my road
    >> bike and my mtn bike to not be bothered by the inefficiency of the low
    >> pressure tires on my mtn bike.

    >
    >I don't feel it. I understand that the fraction of power lost to gear
    >friction is related to the gross power level, and that as gross power
    >increases the percentage of loss decreases. I may not go all that
    >fast, but I do put a lot of wattage through that hub, so maybe that has
    >something to do with why I don't notice extra losses vs. my derailleur
    >bikes.
    >
    >For what it's worth, I feel like I lose a whole gear to inefficiency
    >when I ride one of my Nexus 7 equipped bikes, but my Sachs Spectro 7
    >speed bikes don't feel any lossier to me than my derailleur bikes.
    >
    >Chalo Colina


    Dear Chalo,

    For what it's worth, Kyle and Berto tested a 7-speed Shimano
    Nexus, a 7-speed Sturmey Archer, a 7-speed Sachs, a 14-speed
    Rohloff, along with others, for efficiency.

    Figure 12 shows these four hub gears rising in average
    efficiency at 80, 150, and 200 watts, with a range of about
    1% difference for the Shimano, Sachs, and Rohloff, with the
    Sturmey roughly another 1% below the pack:

    http://www.ihpva.org/pubs/HP52.pdf

    (The averages for the graph are taken, I think, from the
    details of Table 1, at the end of the article. My 1%
    estimate can be improved, but the graphs and figures
    strongly suggest that there's little difference between the
    Shimano, Sachs, and Rohloff, while the Sturmey's inferiority
    is noticeable, but trivial.)

    These tests suggest only 2 to 4 watt absolute differences at
    200 watts, so it's likely that either riders who report much
    more impressive power differences are actuallly noticing
    other differences between the bikes that they ride (tires,
    inflation, differences in internal gear steps, overall
    gearing, wind on the ride, and so forth), or else that one
    of the transmissions on the bikes that they ride happens to
    be a lemon that doesn't represent the model very well.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel
     
  16. OliverS

    OliverS Guest

    Chalo wrote:
    > Jack Kessler wrote
    >> They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    >> but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    >> for some uses but not others?

    >
    > I've had two bikes with Rohloff hubs (still have one) and my sweetie
    > has one. We both have bikes equipped with deralleurs and with other
    > internal gear hubs. We are convinced there is no better bicycle
    > drivetrain than the Rohloff Speedhub. If I could afford to put one on
    > every one of my bikes, I'd do it.
    >
    > Advantages:
    > Huge gear range
    > Consistent intervals between successive gears
    > Fast and positive shifts
    > Shift while pedaling or not, while rolling or at a standstill
    > Almost no maintenance
    > The only gearhub with a QR axle
    > Dramatically reduced chain wear vs. a derailleur
    > Dishless rear wheel
    > Indexing is the hub; shift cables need little to no adjustment
    > Makes the bike look nicer
    >
    > There are a few drawbacks to the Rohloff hub. Lots of folks who don't
    > use one are quick to point out extra weight and power losses, but in my
    > experience neither of these this is noticeable or significant compared
    > to the hub's benefits or its other drawbacks.
    >
    > These are the drawbacks as I see them, in no particular order:
    >
    > The hub comes only in 32 hole drilling-- so fitting one with a 16",
    > 20", 27", 28", or 36" rim could prove tricky. Despite claims to the
    > contrary, 32 spokes are no subsitute for 48 spokes, even if the wheel
    > is dishless. I modified my hub shell to accept 48 spokes, but that was
    > a project well beyond the ability of a typical bike shop, let alone a
    > home mechanic.
    >
    > If your bike is not set up with Rohloff OEM dropouts, it will require
    > you to use the supplied torque arm attachment. This works well enough,
    > and it allows wheel changes without tools, but it is not so elegant to
    > look at. At least it's not as clunky-looking as a derailleur and
    > low-hanging chain.
    >
    > If your bike has vertical dropouts, you'll have to use the supplied
    > chain tensioner, which introduces several of the less welcome
    > characteristics of a deraillaur.
    >
    > If you use drop bars, there is no ideal way to mount the shifter.
    > (Score yet another one for flat bars.)
    >
    > There is a hiccup when shifting between gears 7 and 8 while applying
    > power.
    >
    > Installing the shifter cables for the external shift box is an odious
    > chore. Typical braze-on cable stops and guides on the frame don't work
    > right. There is a small diameter internal shift cable which does not
    > have any commonly available substitute.
    >
    > Shifting takes more force at the twist grip than a derailleur system.
    >
    > All those drawbacks do not give me a moment's pause in asserting that
    > the Rohloff Speedhub is the single best bicycle transmission money can
    > buy. I highly recommend it to anybody who isn't shocked by the price.
    > I'll admit almost every cyclist I know is shocked by the price, though.
    >
    >
    > Chalo Colina
    >


    I have two bikes with Rohloff Speedhubs, the first one I got when they
    had only been on the market for about 4 months, and today I don't want
    to ride with anything else. I have put maybe 5,000 miles on the
    Speedhubs, and as far as I am concerned, dérailleurs are obsolete
    technology. Easy shifting,even when stopped or under moderate load,even
    spaced shifting, broad range etc. Some noise in the lower gears,
    especially 6 and 7, but it is bearable. Expensive? Yes, but I note a
    comment I read in the German bicycle newsgroup: If they weren't so
    expensive I would have one on all of my bicycles except my racing bike.

    For my part, I have custom touting bikes built in hybrid configuration,
    and like touring on all kinds of road surfaces. The Speedhub is perfect
    for this.

    --
    Cheers! OliverS
    When replying personally, remove "_nospam_"

    "When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of
    the human race." HG Wells
     
  17. In article <[email protected]>,
    M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Michael Press wrote:
    > > In article
    > > <[email protected]>,
    > > "Jack Kessler" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    > >> but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    > >> for some uses but not others?

    > >
    > > I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
    > > it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
    > > sack of sugar weighs?
    > >

    >
    > The hub (oem, without oil or skewer) weighs 1705 grams (3.75 lbs) ie 25
    > grams more than a Nexus 8sp


    Did you weigh it? How much with oil and skewers?
    weightweenies gives

    2316 g: red; w/ bellows, rear 1/2s of cable joints, w/o
    oil: 1740 g, assembly: 576 g

    1985: hub + grip shifter (w/out cables), colour???

    --
    Michael Press
     
  18. Per Llatikcuf:
    >
    >In my years of biking rough trails, I have never taco'd a cog. How does
    >one go about doing this?


    I've done three and don't have a clue.

    I just start missing shifts on certain cogs and when I pull the thing off and
    look closely, sure enough: it's cockeyed. If recollection serves, it's been the
    #2 or #3 (i.e. not the biggest, but the next two biggest).
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  19. Per [email protected]:
    >But a 14-speed 4.3 pound Rohloff wonder-hub probably doesn't
    >add 4.3 pounds to a typical bicycle.


    It added 1.9 pounds to mine. Same rim, same tires... SRAM der setup with
    twist shifters.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  20. M-gineering

    M-gineering Guest

    Michael Press wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Michael Press wrote:
    >>> In article
    >>> <[email protected]>,
    >>> "Jack Kessler" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
    >>>> but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
    >>>> for some uses but not others?
    >>> I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
    >>> it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
    >>> sack of sugar weighs?
    >>>

    >> The hub (oem, without oil or skewer) weighs 1705 grams (3.75 lbs) ie 25
    >> grams more than a Nexus 8sp

    >
    > Did you weigh it?


    yes

    How much with oil and skewers?

    25 ml oil is probably 20 grams, Rohloff don't do a skewer

    > weightweenies gives
    >
    > 2316 g: red; w/ bellows, rear 1/2s of cable joints, w/o
    > oil: 1740 g,


    never buy a red one unless you want a tatty one, the paint drops of real
    soon.




    >



    --
    ---
    Marten Gerritsen

    INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
    www.m-gineering.nl
     
Loading...
Loading...