Rohloff Hub Gears

[Walney]

Does anybody have any practical experience of the above? I'm
particularly interested in their usefulness in hill-climbing from the
viewpoint of a not-terribly-fit cyclist pushing sixty. My Dawes
Galaxy has an 11-34 rear block and is ok for most of my needs. It's
just that the low-maintenance of the Rohloff appeals.

Oh, and on an unrelated matter (except that they were mentioned in the
'New Bike' thread), does anybody know if Sterling House have hijacked/
inherited the Muddy Fox brand?

John

 

[POHB]

On 20 Jun, 12:45, Walney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does anybody have any practical experience of the above?
>
> Oh, and on an unrelated matter (except that they were mentioned in the
> 'New Bike' thread), does anybody know if Sterling House have hijacked/
> inherited the Muddy Fox brand?

Can I add to the question, can hub gears be used on an MTB with rear
suspension? Would it require a chain tensioner and/or special
dropout?

I too saw a Sterling House ad for Muddy Fox bikes.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, POHB
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On 20 Jun, 12:45, Walney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Does anybody have any practical experience of the above?
>>
>> Oh, and on an unrelated matter (except that they were mentioned in the
>> 'New Bike' thread), does anybody know if Sterling House have hijacked/
>> inherited the Muddy Fox brand?
>
> Can I add to the question, can hub gears be used on an MTB with rear
> suspension?

Yes.

> Would it require a chain tensioner

Generally speaking, except for GBoxx bikes and URTs, yes.

> and/or a special dropout

The torque reaction can be taken on the disk brake mount or on a special
arm clamped to the chainstay, so a special dropout is not necessary.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

 

[Peter Clinch]

POHB wrote:

> Can I add to the question, can hub gears be used on an MTB with rear
> suspension? Would it require a chain tensioner and/or special
> dropout?

It would require /something/ to look after chain tension unless it had a
unified rear triangle. My (rather uneducated) impression is that that's
quite unusual, but ICBW.

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Walney wrote:
> Does anybody have any practical experience of the above? I'm
> particularly interested in their usefulness in hill-climbing from the
> viewpoint of a not-terribly-fit cyclist pushing sixty. My Dawes
> Galaxy has an 11-34 rear block and is ok for most of my needs. It's
> just that the low-maintenance of the Rohloff appeals.

I've had a little experience of them... enough that I'd like one if only
my lottery numbers came up...

As far as hill climbing goes, it's just a case of sizing
chainwheel/sprocket so that the bottom end is where you want your most
granneous gear to be. Beyond that you'll be more likely to get aware
with Naughty changes under load when you didn't change in advance,
unless you're going 8 -> 7[1], but it isn't going to be harder or easier
with a rohloff rather than a derailleur.

Pete.

[1] It's actually a 7 speed hub with an "overdrive" that gives a
continuous set of 14 gears. Going from 7-8 (or vice versa) changes the
overdrive and steps back to the start of the range. To avoid
potentially nasty false neutrals when this is taking place Rohloff have
engineered a failsafe so that it will drop to 14th rather than give a
false neutral. In practice that should only happen with iffy loaded
changes between 7 and 8, and means you grind to a halt rather than
crash... The alternative on a derailleur would be a nasty grinding
noise and throwing the chain.
--
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/

 

[Paul Rudin]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> POHB wrote:
>
>> Can I add to the question, can hub gears be used on an MTB with rear
>> suspension? Would it require a chain tensioner and/or special
>> dropout?
>
> It would require /something/ to look after chain tension unless it had
> a unified rear triangle. My (rather uneducated) impression is that
> that's quite unusual, but ICBW.


Here's one that uses a chain tensioner -
<http://www.endorfinbikes.co.uk/bikes/vp4rsl/vp4rsl.php>

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>As far as hill climbing goes, it's just a case of sizing
>chainwheel/sprocket so that the bottom end is where you want your most
>granneous gear to be. Beyond that you'll be more likely to get aware
>with Naughty changes under load when you didn't change in advance,
>unless you're going 8 -> 7[1], but it isn't going to be harder or easier
>with a rohloff rather than a derailleur.

As I understand it there is a recommended torque limit to just how
granneous a gear you can use with them, but it's only a problem on
very heavily loaded trikes going up steep hills with Mountain Drives
sort of thing.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Alan Braggins <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
> In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>> As far as hill climbing goes, it's just a case of sizing
>> chainwheel/sprocket so that the bottom end is where you want your
>> most granneous gear to be. Beyond that you'll be more likely to get
>> aware with Naughty changes under load when you didn't change in
>> advance, unless you're going 8 -> 7[1], but it isn't going to be
>> harder or easier with a rohloff rather than a derailleur.
>
> As I understand it there is a recommended torque limit to just how
> granneous a gear you can use with them, but it's only a problem on
> very heavily loaded trikes going up steep hills with Mountain Drives
> sort of thing.

The ratio of chainring to rear sprocket size is a minimum of 2.4:1 and the
use of a Mountain Drive in conjunction with one is Strongly Deprecated.
Though they /are/ tandem rated...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
25.806975801127880315188420605149 - the root of all evil.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Alan Braggins wrote:

> As I understand it there is a recommended torque limit to just how
> granneous a gear you can use with them, but it's only a problem on
> very heavily loaded trikes going up steep hills with Mountain Drives
> sort of thing.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that, but IIRC your caveat to the caveat is
correct. With "only" a 560% range, if you had anything /stupidly/ low
then you'd run out at the top. ISTM that for a tourer wanting leisurely
hill climbing then something like a 19" to 106" range might be a good
sort of setup.

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/

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>> As I understand it there is a recommended torque limit to just how
>> granneous a gear you can use with them, but it's only a problem on
>> very heavily loaded trikes going up steep hills with Mountain Drives
>> sort of thing.
>
>Ah yes, I'd forgotten that, but IIRC your caveat to the caveat is
>correct. With "only" a 560% range, if you had anything /stupidly/ low
>then you'd run out at the top.

But a Mountain Drive (or High Speed Drive with very small chainring and
very big rear sprocket) would give you 1400%, enough for both a stupidly
(and, as Mr Larrington says, Strongly Deprecated) low end and a high
top end.

Presumably you could use one with a chain tensioner and front derailleur
as well if you really needed more range, at least on a rear-wheel-drive
recumbent where the chain line is less of an issue. A Schlumpf would
obviously be a cleaner solution though (but maybe buying a Rohloff in
the first place used all your hypothetical gear budget). Using a Rohloff,
a Schlumpf _and_ a front derailleur for range would just be silly, though
you could use half-step chainrings for finer steps.

 

[Don Whybrow]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>> As far as hill climbing goes, it's just a case of sizing
>> chainwheel/sprocket so that the bottom end is where you want your most
>> granneous gear to be. Beyond that you'll be more likely to get aware
>> with Naughty changes under load when you didn't change in advance,
>> unless you're going 8 -> 7[1], but it isn't going to be harder or easier
>> with a rohloff rather than a derailleur.
>
> As I understand it there is a recommended torque limit to just how
> granneous a gear you can use with them, but it's only a problem on
> very heavily loaded trikes going up steep hills with Mountain Drives
> sort of thing.

I thought that they were OK with Mountain Drive & Speed Drive but you
were not covered under warranty if you used a High Speed Drive.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.

 

[Tosspot]

Don Whybrow wrote:
> Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>>> As far as hill climbing goes, it's just a case of sizing
>>> chainwheel/sprocket so that the bottom end is where you want your
>>> most granneous gear to be. Beyond that you'll be more likely to get
>>> aware with Naughty changes under load when you didn't change in
>>> advance, unless you're going 8 -> 7[1], but it isn't going to be
>>> harder or easier with a rohloff rather than a derailleur.
>>
>>
>> As I understand it there is a recommended torque limit to just how
>> granneous a gear you can use with them, but it's only a problem on
>> very heavily loaded trikes going up steep hills with Mountain Drives
>> sort of thing.
>
>
> I thought that they were OK with Mountain Drive & Speed Drive but you
> were not covered under warranty if you used a High Speed Drive.

Other way around I thought. Mountain drive bad, Speed drive good. I
did check when I got my speed drive and thats definitely the impression
I got.

 

[Don Whybrow]

Tosspot wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>
>>>> As far as hill climbing goes, it's just a case of sizing
>>>> chainwheel/sprocket so that the bottom end is where you want your
>>>> most granneous gear to be. Beyond that you'll be more likely to get
>>>> aware with Naughty changes under load when you didn't change in
>>>> advance, unless you're going 8 -> 7[1], but it isn't going to be
>>>> harder or easier with a rohloff rather than a derailleur.
>>>
>>>
>>> As I understand it there is a recommended torque limit to just how
>>> granneous a gear you can use with them, but it's only a problem on
>>> very heavily loaded trikes going up steep hills with Mountain Drives
>>> sort of thing.
>>
>>
>> I thought that they were OK with Mountain Drive & Speed Drive but you
>> were not covered under warranty if you used a High Speed Drive.
>
> Other way around I thought. Mountain drive bad, Speed drive good. I
> did check when I got my speed drive and thats definitely the impression
> I got.

<checks Schlumpf>

From the FAQs

<http://www.schlumpf.ch/hsd_engl.htm>
"Can I combine high-speed-drive with the Rohloff-Speedhub 14-speed
internal hub?"

No. Rohloff limits the minimal size of the chainwheel to 36t.

If looking for a possibility to get a wider range of the Rohloff,
combine it with speed-drive.

<http://www.schlumpf.ch/sd_engl.htm>
Can I combine the Rohloff Speedhub with speed-drive?

Yes. Please note the minimal chainring and rear cog size of 36/15 and
38/16, stipulated by Rohloff.

The Rohloff hub has a wide chainline of about 54mm. Please fit the
chainring to the right side of the spider, if combining it with a
Speedhub. Or use the 10mm longer axle to meet the chainline accurately.

<http://www.schlumpf.ch/md_engl.htm>
Can I combine the Rohloff Speedhub with mountain-drive?

No. The minimal chainring size stipulated by Rohloff is 36 teeth. With
the 2.5 reduction of mountain-drive, this equals a chainring size of 90
teeth!

Use speed-drive instead, which is compatible to the Speedhub.

</checks Schlumpf>

Ah! Speed Drive good, Mountain and High Speed drive bad.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Discordianism: Where reality is a figment of your imagination

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:45:25 -0700, Walney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Does anybody have any practical experience of the above? I'm
>particularly interested in their usefulness in hill-climbing from the
>viewpoint of a not-terribly-fit cyclist pushing sixty. My Dawes
>Galaxy has an 11-34 rear block and is ok for most of my needs. It's
>just that the low-maintenance of the Rohloff appeals.

I'd been riding a Rohloff (almost) daily for the last two years.
Following an accident at the end of April my Rohloff's been out of
action, so I've reverted to my non suspension mountain bike with
derailleur gears. What a faff!

Grind - creak every click.

No more arriving at traffic lights in 11th gear then changing to 3rd
while waiting for them to change.

No more smooth changes from 7th to 8th gear, instead you grind and
creak only to find youve *dropped* a gear or two! Why is 8th gear
more like 5th!? Don't answer that - I know.

Climbing with a Rohloff is bliss, and if you don't like the ratios,
simply change the chainring or sprocket.

>Oh, and on an unrelated matter (except that they were mentioned in the
>'New Bike' thread), does anybody know if Sterling House have hijacked/
>inherited the Muddy Fox brand?
>
>John

 

[Tony Stoneley]

>Does anybody have any practical experience of the above? [Rohloff]

Yes. I've had a Thorn Raven Tour for two years, superseding my ageing
traditional tourer. I have great affection for the old bike, but the
new one nearly always gets taken out by preference.

>I'm particularly interested in their usefulness in hill-climbing from
>the viewpoint of a not-terribly-fit cyclist pushing sixty.

I've pushed 60, and from my house the road leads straight up a 300
foot climb maxing at 1:6. The Rohloff hub does just fine, with several
notches in hand.

>My Dawes Galaxy has an 11-34 rear block and is ok for most of my
>needs.

That represents a min:max ration of just over 1:3, times whatever
ratio you have between your chainwheels. The Rohloff hub as a min:max
ratio of 1:5, the placement depending on what size sprocket you
choose. On my bike I have lowest=19" and highest=95".

>It's just that the low-maintenance of the Rohloff appeals.

Yes! And it Just Works, on and on. No adjusting, no fiddling, no
cursing, no mess. What a joy in comparison with deraileurs.

IMHO it is and does exactly what it says on the packet, or rather on
the promotional literature at, e.g., www.sjscycles.com. Alas, however,
the price is also as on the packet. Note also what it says about
running in: the first 50 miles or so were very sticky, and some
stickiness persisted up to around 500.

I would suggest buying it as part of a bike that's designed for it, as
is the Raven. If you need a tensioner or other gubbins you are
starting to throw away the advantages.

--
Tony Stoneley

 

[Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Schulze-B=E4ing?=]

Am 20 Jun 2007 21:56:02 +0100 schrieb Tony Stoneley:

>>It's just that the low-maintenance of the Rohloff appeals.
>
> Yes! And it Just Works, on and on. No adjusting, no fiddling, no
> cursing, no mess. What a joy in comparison with deraileurs.

I just came across this bit in the Speedhub FAQ:
http://www.rohloff.de/index.php?id=308&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=528&tx_ttnews[backPid]=284&cHash=0d31882dcc&L=1

"After approx. 90.000km, a Rohloff SPEEDHUB 500/14 was sent back to us in
order to be inspected. The customer wanted to know exactly what sort of a
condition the mechanism was in after such use. After a thorough examination
of all the internal bearings and gears, the service mechanic could not find
any signs of extreme wear or funtion failure."

It seems to be a remarkable piece of engineering... quite tempted now to
consider one for my next bike

Andreas

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 20, 11:44 pm, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alan Braggins wrote:
> > As I understand it there is a recommended torque limit to just how
> > granneous a gear you can use with them, but it's only a problem on
> > very heavily loaded trikes going up steep hills with Mountain Drives
> > sort of thing.
>
> Ah yes, I'd forgotten that, but IIRC your caveat to the caveat is
> correct. With "only" a 560% range, if you had anything /stupidly/ low
> then you'd run out at the top. ISTM that for a tourer wanting leisurely
> hill climbing then something like a 19" to 106" range might be a good
> sort of setup.

The bottom limit is ok for our MTB tandem, but not overly generous
IMO. In fact on a recent trip with a long steep road climb we did
struggle (but this is in Japan, long and steep have very different
meanings to the UK). That's despite being fit and strong climbers
compared to many cyclists (skinny midgets are in another class
entirely). Given the choice, I would have chosen a slightly lower gear
- and of course someone on a single bike could probably safely do so
given the lower load, but on a tandem I didn't want to take the risk.

Overall, the hub is great, BTW.

James

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Tom Crispin <[email protected]>:
>No more arriving at traffic lights in 11th gear then changing to 3rd
>while waiting for them to change.

Why would you _want_ to change down eight gears just to pull away from the
lights? Do you secretly want to be a lorry driver or something?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Teleute, Presuary.

 

[raisethe]

On 20 Jun, 18:10, [email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>:
>
>> Presumably you could use one with a chain tensioner and front derailleur
> as well if you really needed more range, at least on a rear-wheel-drive
> recumbent where the chain line is less of an issue.

On an upright bike this didn't work in my case. With a Nexus 8 and
Rohloff tensioner I tried two chain rings at the front but even with
just a couple of teeth difference between the rings, clean changes
weren't possible.

 

[James Thomson]

"Andreas Schulze-Bäing" <[email protected]> a écrit:

> "After approx. 90.000km, a Rohloff SPEEDHUB 500/14 was sent
> back to us in order to be inspected. The customer wanted to know
> exactly what sort of a condition the mechanism was in after such use.
> After a thorough examination of all the internal bearings and gears,
> the service mechanic could not find any signs of extreme wear or
> funtion failure."

> It seems to be a remarkable piece of engineering... quite tempted
> now to consider one for my next bike

This picture was posted to rec.bicycles.tech a while ago:

http://tricolour.net/photos/2007/03/08/19-37-38i1.html

Click "day" for a few more pictures.

There looks to be considerable wear to the face ratchet. According to the
accompanying text, this is after six years use (mileage unspecified) on a
tandem trike.

James Thomson