groupset weight vs internal hub

Quoted message said:

Has anyone ever weighed a total groupset, including shifters cables,
rear hub with axle/skewer, cassette, and front and rear derailleur and
compared it to say an average gear hub. A sturmey 3 speed weighs
approx 1300g with all fittings and shifter. Is there much of a
difference?
Cheers, Nick.

According to Rohloff
http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/rohloffde/download/beschreibung/speedhub/handbuch/benutzerinfo_2.13.en.pdf

"The RohloffSPEEDHUB500/14 is with a weight of 120g per gear, the
lightest gear hub on the market. The gear range
is the same as high quality 27 gear derailleur systems due to the 14
gears within the hub being evenly spaced out at
13.6% increases.With the
RohloffSPEEDHUB500/14
there is no longer a need for the following parts:
Front and rear derailleur
Two shifters including shifter cables
Rear hub with cassette
Small and middle chainrings
The total average weight of all these components is approx. 1600g.
The weight of a fitted RohloffSPEEDHUB500/14CC OEM including twist
shifter, shifter cables and cable guide is
approx. 1820g."

On the other hand, they might be putting a bit of a gloss on it.
Here's what you'd ditch from XTR (M960, V-brakes, from Weightweenies)

Front and rear derailleur 131 + 197
Two shifters including shifter cables 412 + 50
Rear hub with cassette & QR 310 + 249 + 60
Small and middle chainrings 30 + 44

ADD
Normal brake levers 165

Net loss 1318g

You also need fewer links in the chain, but only about 10g worth, and
if your frame doesn't have either adjustable dropouts or an eccentric
BB, you need a chain tensioner. Whichever method you use, it adds
another 50-100g to the hub gear option

If I were building an XTR-level hardtail, I'd live with just over a
pound of extra weight, but the Rohloff would still be a couple of
hundred more expensive. If you being a weight weenie, the extra money
could probably buy you another 100g by upgrading the bar and seatpost
to carbon, as an example.

At the Sturmey 3-speed level, you should compare with a single
chainring set-up from the outset, as the range of gears (less than 2:1
between top and bottom) can be had without recourse to multiple
chainrings. Even the 7 & 8 speed hubs have only ~3:1 ratios, which is
the same as an 11-34 cassette. Even at Deore level, that's only about
1kg of stuff to throw out when switching to a hub gear.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

cheers for all the info, it's much appreciated. That's really
fascinating to think that a Rohloff and a 3 speed is lighter than a
derailleur set-up. I guess it just shows the power of advertising to
install a false idea in the minds of cash laden consumers. I read
somewhere that Rohloff are working towards a lightweight version of
their hub. I'm surprised that more serious mountain bikers who break
many derailleurs, don't switch to the more reliable contained system.
It's weird how lower weight is considered synonamous with better bikes
across the board, regardless of application. Fair enough for racers or
supported tourers, but 32 spokes for a 200lbs lunker like me, is a
long walk home waiting to happen. I guess light duty equates to
greater failure rates which in turn means more profits.
I can't imagine having a $1000 hub on my rear wheel, i'd be thinking
about damaging it or getting it stolen. Maybe market forces with
eventually bring the product down in price. I figure the Chinese with
eventually discover a way of producing a Rohlzingzang version for
$100, just because theirs so much demand.

Is that weight for the XTR considered one of the better sets in terms
of race advantage? I wonder if the weight variance is much greater for
the lower end sets such as stx and alivio. I would of thought that the
hub gear could get a better weight and durability advantage on the
lower end bikes, which is probably why they don't want it to get too
popular. From what i've read, it's considered ok to replace a
derailleur set every year if it is well used. Blimey Shimano and Campy
must be laughing their rocks off, i'm in the wrong business.

As regards the gear ratios, to be honest(call me a witch and burn me
now), i'm one of those few mid mileage cyclists(150miles per week),
who from experience has found that 3 gears are sufficient for any
terrain(in the UK anyway), though hands up, it would be cool to have a
little more top end. I currently get 77/104/130 gear inches from my
14T/46T AW hubbed 3 speed, which gives me about 32mph top with a good
wind and a flat speed of 23mph or so. Have you ever got past the 50mph
point? I've not noticed any difference between me and ?1500 biked
weekend riders when we're on a tough hill They change gear and i give
it some welly. I suppose having 24 gears gives less perceived effort
inbetween changes.

I know it's not a popular view and that whatever people are happy
with should persist, but when a hill gets tough, i just increase the
effort and power from my legs. Maybe it's just the hegemony that comes
from professional sport and is then harnessed by companies like
Shimano. I know that people like to get as much efficiency as
possible at the higher competitive levels, but to be honest i still
really believe that your average 150miles a week leisure cyclist has
absolutely no real practical need for more than about 5 gears in terms
of having a gear within a certain range.

Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Cheers again for the reply, all the best, Nick.

Quoted message said:

I currently get 77/104/130 gear inches from my
14T/46T AW hubbed 3 speed, which gives me about 32mph top with a good
wind and a flat speed of 23mph or so. Have you ever got past the 50mph
point?

Quoted message said:

Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Those ratios don't make sense for an AW, and you must have a huge rear
tire - about a 700x65, no?

I'm no speed demon, but I've certainly hit 50 kph with great whizzing
of legs on rare occasions, commute commonly at 30 kph and have hit 80
kph down a mountain once or twice, and I certain don't have 130 or 138
gear inches on my tourer. My range is more like 18-100".

As to the race cars, with their power, 5 or 6 speed gears are thin
enough for most. It's not like they can just strap on a Schlumpf drive.

Brian Huntley said:

On Mar 31, 3:32 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Bicycle Science concludes that only 12 gears are necessary to transmit
the normal range of human power on a bicycle. This makes the Rohloff a
good choice IF you can afford it and IF you don't mind losing a little
power.

Before anyone gets excited about hub gears they should be aware that
the efficiency (% power transmitted) is about 4% less for hub gears
than for a clean dérailleur.

There's no 'advertising conspiracy' to sell derailleur gear sets. The
fact is that derailleurs can be cheap and cheerful and very flexible.
You can make a chainring with hand tools - to make a hub gear you need
fairly sophisticated machinery.
You can 'limp home' with a derailleur system, but once a hub is
stripped or jammed you can't.

Once a gear has been selected on a derailleur you've virtually got
direct drive - interrupted only by the jockey wheels - which is why
decent bearings in the pulleys is a worthwhile upgrade.

Hubs are relatively noisy too - the Schlumpf in particular has an
annoying 'whirr' in the non direct gear setting.

On 1 Apr 2007 02:30:35 -0700, "lightninglad" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Brian Huntley said:

On Mar 31, 3:32 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Bicycle Science concludes that only 12 gears are necessary to transmit
the normal range of human power on a bicycle. This makes the Rohloff a
good choice IF you can afford it and IF you don't mind losing a little
power.

Before anyone gets excited about hub gears they should be aware that
the efficiency (% power transmitted) is about 4% less for hub gears
than for a clean dérailleur.

Yes, a 'clean' derailleur is where the problem starts; over here in
perpetually rainy England, we have mud. The Rohloff seems to make most
sense for those muddy XC rides where an extra pound of weight is
irrelevant next to the 10lb of mud your bike can accumulate, and the
derailleur rapidly gets so fouled that it's efficiency falls to that
of a hub gear. Given that mud also destroys the delicate exposed
gearing systems quite quickly, the cost over lifetime is not as steep
as the initial selling price of the Rohloff suggests

All this is a bit academic for me anyway; I live by the river, so all
my XC rides are so flat that my singlespeed has more than enough
gears, but I can see the advantage for riders with more challenging
terrain

In the absence of mud, derailleurs are lighter, cheaper and more
efficient. It's the discs vs. rim brake argument all over again.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

Brian Huntley said:

Quoted message said:

I currently get 77/104/130 gear inches from my
14T/46T AW hubbed 3 speed,

Those ratios don't make sense for an AW, and you must have a huge rear
tire - about a 700x65, no?

I think i got it a bit wrong somewhere because i was quoting what i
use to get with the 46/12( if i remember 76/101/135). It's probably me
making a hash of it but this is how i worked it out.
46/14 gives you a base gear ratio of 3.28. Putting that through an a
normal -25%, 100%, +33% gives crank to wheel ratio of 2.46,3.28, 4.37.
Finally multiplying those figures by the 26 1 3/8 Marathon plus tyre
tyre diameter of 26.5" actually now gives 65, 87, 115.

I've never had any noise with the Sturmey hubs, though i know that
some some like a snoring dog in one or two of their gears. I know what
you mean about the mud on the tyres, with the Marathon plus tyres i've
only got about 1mm clearance betwixt tyre and the reflector bolt on
the rear mudguard, so i carry the 56lbs beast over any muddy terrain
which isn't ideal when you're in a field full of angry cows with a
fishing rod waving all over the place.

Have there ever been any efforts to use teflon or some form of
composite for the parts of the gear hub? I know that they are used in
Derailleurs, maybe some of the heavier parts,(such as the planet cage
etc) could be swapped out. I know that plastic gears can last a
surprisingly long time in some application. I guess when the load is
significant it doesn't hold up over time.

You're making me think about buying a Rohloff. If it lasts as long as
a Sturmey and is lighter than my Dynohub, then it could be a weight
saving and reliability upgrade, not that i've ever had a Sturmey
fail.

Re the dirt i completely agree, my brother runs a Giant ATX with all
top spec gear on it and it is so easy to get the rear mech gunked up
and virtually unuseable. I don't see why Shimano couldn't transfer the
enclosed chaincase concept to a derailleur cage and rear cassette. I'm
sure they could integrate the QR function with some for of protective
shell that would be especially good for mudlark mountain bikers.

Cheers, Nick.

Quoted message said:

.

lightninglad said:

Brian Huntley said:

On Mar 31, 3:32 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Bicycle Science concludes that only 12 gears are necessary to transmit
the normal range of human power on a bicycle.

12 gears? I guess if you could really select the 12 gears, then yes
12 would be all that is needed. Say 1 super bailout low gear and 2 or
3 low gears for non cliff climbing. Then the other 8-9 gears evenly
spaced in the medium and high gearing ends. A front chainring of 42
with a 12 cog cassette of 11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-24-30 would be
pretty good. Although the low isn't super low and the high isn't too
high. High enough for all but true racers or internet bicyclists.
But with the way bicycles are geared, 1-2-3 fixed tooth chainrings in
front, and 5-10 fixed cogs in back, having only 12 gears to cover the
needed range isn't going to work.

The Rohloff hub's gearing problem for road bicyclists is the huge jump
between every gear. Something like 13% I believe. Very similar to a
12-34 9 speed cassette. 12-14-16-18-20-23-26-30-34. Fine enough for
mountain bikers or tourists. Actually a good jump if used with half
step chainrings. But for road riders, those are huge jumps. My road
bike cassettes all have corn cobs in the heart of the gearing range.
13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 or 13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-26 or
12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23. Coupled with chainrings of 52-42-30 or
53-42 or 48-40 or 46-32, these cassettes and chainrings all give great
gearing for going 10 to 25 mph at a comfortable cadence. With small
steps between gears when road slope or wind changes just a bit. Or I
want to go just a bit faster or slower. On road rides I don't want to
jump 2 or more teeth when changing gears unless I am climbing a hill
slowly. Rohloff does not allow for fine gearing adjustments. If the
Rohloff had say 5% gearing jumps for the first 10 gears, then 13% for
the next 3, and 25% for the final gear, 14 total, then it would be
perfect for a road bike. Small gearing jumps where you need it, 30-15
mph, medium jumps 15-10 mph, and huge jump at the under 10mph level.

This makes the Rohloff a

Quoted message said:

good choice IF you can afford it and IF you don't mind losing a little
power.

Before anyone gets excited about hub gears they should be aware that
the efficiency (% power transmitted) is about 4% less for hub gears
than for a clean dérailleur.

There's no 'advertising conspiracy' to sell derailleur gear sets. The
fact is that derailleurs can be cheap and cheerful and very flexible.
You can make a chainring with hand tools - to make a hub gear you need
fairly sophisticated machinery.
You can 'limp home' with a derailleur system, but once a hub is
stripped or jammed you can't.

Once a gear has been selected on a derailleur you've virtually got
direct drive - interrupted only by the jockey wheels - which is why
decent bearings in the pulleys is a worthwhile upgrade.

Hubs are relatively noisy too - the Schlumpf in particular has an
annoying 'whirr' in the non direct gear setting.

voltimando said:

cheers for all the info, it's much appreciated. That's really
fascinating to think that a Rohloff and a 3 speed is lighter than a
derailleur set-up. I guess it just shows the power of advertising to
install a false idea in the minds of cash laden consumers. I read
somewhere that Rohloff are working towards a lightweight version of
their hub.

Weight doesn't matter as much as drag (mechanical friction), which is
higher with internal gear hubs. Derailleur systems have as much as 98%
efficiency, and almost always better than 90% efficiency. Internal gear
hubs hover around 85-90% efficiency.

But the real obstacle to people adopting these hubs is cost, and industry
inertia. Entire Wal-Mart bikes cost less than Shimano Nexus hubs, and
work just fine.

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised that more serious mountain bikers who break
many derailleurs, don't switch to the more reliable contained system.

I don't know what you consider "serious," but in 20 years of mountain
biking I've never broken a derailleur.

However I'm completely sold on the mud-resistant and maintenance-free
aspects of these hubs. In that light, I'm surprised they're not more
popular too. However I'm also surprised how so few bikes with internal
gear hubs lack the one thing that would really make them worthwhile -- a
full chain case.

Matt O.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

lightninglad said:

Brian Huntley said:

On Mar 31, 3:32 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Bicycle Science concludes that only 12 gears are necessary to transmit
the normal range of human power on a bicycle. This makes the Rohloff a
good choice IF you can afford it and IF you don't mind losing a little
power.

Before anyone gets excited about hub gears they should be aware that
the efficiency (% power transmitted) is about 4% less for hub gears
than for a clean dérailleur.

Rather than quote percent, can you tell us exactly how
much power is lost in various hub gear and chain systems
and exactly how much power is lost in a reasonably clean
derailleur and chain system?
--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

lightninglad said:

Brian Huntley said:

On Mar 31, 3:32 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
> cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Bicycle Science concludes that only 12 gears are necessary to transmit
the normal range of human power on a bicycle. This makes the Rohloff a
good choice IF you can afford it and IF you don't mind losing a little
power.

Before anyone gets excited about hub gears they should be aware that
the efficiency (% power transmitted) is about 4% less for hub gears
than for a clean dérailleur.

Rather than quote percent, can you tell us exactly how
much power is lost in various hub gear and chain systems
and exactly how much power is lost in a reasonably clean
derailleur and chain system?

What would be the point or so doing?

a) actual power loss would be - in part - a function of power input, which
is (to say the least) variable;

and

b) the various efficiencies - or indeed actual losses - will also vary,
depending on the design and the state of lubrication, alignment, etcetera.

The original point is that there is a reduced efficiency with hub gears
(compared to derailleur gear systems), which may/should be a consideration.

In article <[email hidden]>,

_ said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

lightninglad said:

On Apr 1, 1:09 pm, "Brian Huntley" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 3:32 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
>

> > Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
> > cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.
>

Bicycle Science concludes that only 12 gears are necessary to transmit
the normal range of human power on a bicycle. This makes the Rohloff a
good choice IF you can afford it and IF you don't mind losing a little
power.

Before anyone gets excited about hub gears they should be aware that
the efficiency (% power transmitted) is about 4% less for hub gears
than for a clean dérailleur.

Rather than quote percent, can you tell us exactly how
much power is lost in various hub gear and chain systems
and exactly how much power is lost in a reasonably clean
derailleur and chain system?

What would be the point or so doing?

Because when you quote raw percent,
I do not know the percent of what.

If power loss went from 4 watt out of 100 what to 8
watt out of 100 watt you can say 4 percent loss and I
could say 100 percent loss; neither of us will be wrong.
--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I currently get 77/104/130 gear inches from my
14T/46T AW hubbed 3 speed, which gives me about 32mph top with a good
wind and a flat speed of 23mph or so. Have you ever got past the 50mph
point?
Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Brian Huntley said:

Those ratios don't make sense for an AW, and you must have a huge rear
tire - about a 700x65, no?
I'm no speed demon, but I've certainly hit 50 kph with great whizzing
of legs on rare occasions, commute commonly at 30 kph and have hit 80
kph down a mountain once or twice, and I certain don't have 130 or 138
gear inches on my tourer. My range is more like 18-100".
As to the race cars, with their power, 5 or 6 speed gears are thin
enough for most. It's not like they can just strap on a Schlumpf drive.

His numbers are close, I wonder what method he used? AW are 1.33 in
high gear and 0.75 in low gear, second being direct drive.

I agree the gearing is huge, at least not for most riders, but he seems
to be satisfied. Mine's 43x22 or 39-52-69, YMMV
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

_ said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"lightninglad" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On Apr 1, 1:09 pm, "Brian Huntley" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 3:32 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
>>
>
>> > Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
>> > cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.
>>
>
> Bicycle Science concludes that only 12 gears are necessary to transmit
> the normal range of human power on a bicycle. This makes the Rohloff a
> good choice IF you can afford it and IF you don't mind losing a little
> power.
>
> Before anyone gets excited about hub gears they should be aware that
> the efficiency (% power transmitted) is about 4% less for hub gears
> than for a clean dérailleur.

Rather than quote percent, can you tell us exactly how
much power is lost in various hub gear and chain systems
and exactly how much power is lost in a reasonably clean
derailleur and chain system?

What would be the point or so doing?

Because when you quote raw percent,
I do not know the percent of what.

If power loss went from 4 watt out of 100 what to 8
watt out of 100 watt you can say 4 percent loss and I
could say 100 percent loss; neither of us will be wrong.

Lemme guess - you've also been taking lessons in arithmetic from Bill
Sornson (r.b.t.'s spelling pedant in another guise).

email hidden said:

lightninglad said:

Brian Huntley said:

On Mar 31, 3:32 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
> cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Bicycle Science concludes that only 12 gears are necessary to transmit
the normal range of human power on a bicycle.

12 gears? I guess if you could really select the 12 gears, then yes
12 would be all that is needed.

The Rohloff hub's gearing problem for road bicyclists is the huge jump
between every gear. Something like 13% I believe.

Huge jump? 13.6% is the difference between pedaling at 105rpm and 90.
If you haven't done some serious work with a power meter, you probably
don't even know which of those speeds is more efficient for you.

The Rohloff is not a road racing product, and for normal utility,
touring and off road riding 13.6% is a small jump. A normal road race
set up has only 2 to 2.5:1 ratio between top and bottom, the Rohloff
has >5:1. Given that my speed ranges from <4mph to >40mph on hilly
road ride, I already have to use a cadence ratio of 4:1 even if I'm in
the right gear at all times. Switching to a Rohloff, I could stay
between 75 and 150rpm, instead of 40 and 160, with the minor penalty
of often being 7or 8rpm away from some putative sweet spot.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

Kinky Cowboy said:

Yes, a 'clean' derailleur is where the problem starts; over here in
perpetually rainy England, we have mud. The Rohloff seems to make most
sense for those muddy XC rides where an extra pound of weight is
irrelevant next to the 10lb of mud your bike can accumulate,

Hmm, so a hub-geared bike won't accumulate mud?

Quoted message said:

and the
derailleur rapidly gets so fouled that it's efficiency falls to that
of a hub gear.

In such conditions a hub gear's efficiency, or that of the chain and
sprockets, also is effected, though hopefully the hub gear itself would
not be.

Quoted message said:

Given that mud also destroys the delicate exposed
gearing systems quite quickly, the cost over lifetime is not as steep
as the initial selling price of the Rohloff suggests

Actually, derailleur systems are extremely rugged, which is why most
riders in cyclocross events, as well as mountain bikers, still use them.
I won't suggest that hub gears are not as least as rugged, but then
there is that problem of what you do when it does break. When a
derailleur breaks, you can usually still get home.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

Kinky Cowboy said:

Quoted message said:

The Rohloff hub's gearing problem for road bicyclists is the huge jump
between every gear. Something like 13% I believe.

Huge jump?

I'd have to say that it's bigger than I would want, if I were going to
spend $1000 on a gear system.

13.6% is the difference between pedaling at 105rpm and 90.

Quoted message said:

If you haven't done some serious work with a power meter, you probably
don't even know which of those speeds is more efficient for you.

Which is more efficient depends upon the terrain, and your conditioning.

Quoted message said:

The Rohloff is not a road racing product, and for normal utility,
touring and off road riding 13.6% is a small jump.

OK, I wouldn't seriously dispute that, except to say that I like even
smaller jumps if I can get it without losing the range I want.

Quoted message said:

A normal road race
set up has only 2 to 2.5:1 ratio between top and bottom, the Rohloff
has >5:1.

But I thought the Rohloff was not for racing, so comparing to racing
equipment is not relevant. A normal geared touring setup, with a
compact style triple crank and wide range cassette will certainly extend
to a range of 4 or 5 to 1. Besides, if your top gear is around 100 gear
inches, do you really need that 20-incher? A tourist would not need the
100-inch gear, arguably, but would also not need anything quite that low.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

David L. Johnson said:

Kinky Cowboy said:

Quoted message said:

The Rohloff hub's gearing problem for road bicyclists is the huge jump
between every gear. Something like 13% I believe.

Huge jump?

I'd have to say that it's bigger than I would want, if I were going to
spend $1000 on a gear system.

13.6% is the difference between pedaling at 105rpm and 90.

Quoted message said:

If you haven't done some serious work with a power meter, you probably
don't even know which of those speeds is more efficient for you.

Which is more efficient depends upon the terrain, and your conditioning.

My point precisely; for most things, being within some 7% of a
putative optimum cadence will make a negligible difference

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Rohloff is not a road racing product, and for normal utility,
touring and off road riding 13.6% is a small jump.

OK, I wouldn't seriously dispute that, except to say that I like even
smaller jumps if I can get it without losing the range I want.

Quoted message said:

A normal road race
set up has only 2 to 2.5:1 ratio between top and bottom, the Rohloff
has >5:1.

But I thought the Rohloff was not for racing, so comparing to racing
equipment is not relevant.

My comment was in reply to a post comparing the 'huge' 13.6% jump of
the Rohloff with the 'tiny' 6.6% jump of going from the 16 to the 15
in the middle of a straight through (corn-cob, for septics) cassette.

Personally, I'd love a Rohloff which had closer jumps and only a 2.5:1
ratio from top to bottom, which is what I have on my geared bike with
48-34 rings and a 14-25 9-speed cassette. 14 gears with 7.3% jumps,
just like my derailleurs (because 2 rings and 9 sprockets is only 14
gears, regardless of swing tags which say "18-speed"😉

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

David L. Johnson said:

Kinky Cowboy said:

Yes, a 'clean' derailleur is where the problem starts; over here in
perpetually rainy England, we have mud. The Rohloff seems to make most
sense for those muddy XC rides where an extra pound of weight is
irrelevant next to the 10lb of mud your bike can accumulate,

Hmm, so a hub-geared bike won't accumulate mud?

It acquires less mud (just subtract the stuff stuck to the two
derailleurs and between the chain rings), but my point was really that
an extra pound is trivial on a bike which already weighs >35lb before
you wash it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and the
derailleur rapidly gets so fouled that it's efficiency falls to that
of a hub gear.

In such conditions a hub gear's efficiency, or that of the chain and
sprockets, also is effected, though hopefully the hub gear itself would
not be.

You gain by not having the massively increased pulley wheel drag which
a layer of mud on the derailleur cage adds

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

Kinky Cowboy said:

On 1 Apr 2007 11:19:28 -0700, "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

lightninglad said:

On Apr 1, 1:09 pm, "Brian Huntley" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Mar 31, 3:32 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Undoubtedly a silly question, but why don't they have 30 gears on race
> > cars if it improves efficiency or performance so greatly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bicycle Science concludes that only 12 gears are necessary to transmit
the normal range of human power on a bicycle.

Quoted message said:

12 gears? I guess if you could really select the 12 gears, then yes
12 would be all that is needed.

Quoted message said:

The Rohloff hub's gearing problem for road bicyclists is the huge jump
between every gear. Something like 13% I believe.

Huge jump? 13.6% is the difference between pedaling at 105rpm and 90.
If you haven't done some serious work with a power meter, you probably
don't even know which of those speeds is more efficient for you.

It is readily apparent from your response you do not ride a road style
cassette. You only use mountain bike style cassettes of 12-34 or
11-34. Huge 2-3-4 tooth jumps between cogs across the entire range.
Therefore the Rohloff 13% jumps will match up with what you are used
to. For the vast, vast majority of road bicyclists, the huge gearing
jumps of the Rohloff would diminish cycling enjoyment.

Quoted message said:

The Rohloff is not a road racing product, and for normal utility,
touring and off road riding 13.6% is a small jump. A normal road race
set up has only 2 to 2.5:1 ratio between top and bottom, the Rohloff
has >5:1. Given that my speed ranges from <4mph to >40mph on hilly
road ride, I already have to use a cadence ratio of 4:1 even if I'm in
the right gear at all times. Switching to a Rohloff, I could stay
between 75 and 150rpm, instead of 40 and 160, with the minor penalty
of often being 7or 8rpm away from some putative sweet spot.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -