Rohloff Speedhub 500/14

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Wayne T, Feb 6, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    Is anyone familiar with this hub? It reminds me of the old 3 speeds, only this is a 14 speed with a
    16 tooth rear sprocket and a 44 tooth chain ring. They compare it with a 48/36/26 tooth chainrings
    and a 11-28 tooth cassette. Gear range is 1.58 - 8.31 m. Though it has a top gear of 117.8, the low
    gear is only 25.1. So that is the first disadvantage. Another big disadvantage is that it weighs
    3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight on a wheel is equivalent to two pounds elsewhere. So, even
    the lack of a 2 chain rings and derailler systems probably wouldn't offset this extra weight. Also,
    I would think that you might need a second smaller chainring so that you can get the lower gears
    for touring.

    Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring and Mountain bikes.
     
    Tags:


  2. Wayne T wrote:

    > Is anyone familiar with this hub? It reminds me of the old 3 speeds, only this is a 14 speed with
    > a 16 tooth rear sprocket and a 44 tooth chain ring. They compare it with a 48/36/26 tooth
    > chainrings and a 11-28 tooth cassette. Gear range is 1.58 - 8.31 m. Though it has a top gear of
    > 117.8, the low gear is only 25.1. So that is the first disadvantage.

    That's a disadvantage? ;-)

    If you don't like the placement of the gear range, you can move it up or down by installing a
    different sized front or rear sprocket. The overall range is unusually wide, wider than anybody
    actually needs.

    > Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    > standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring and Mountain bikes.

    See: http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/rohloff.html

    Sheldon "Wish I Could Afford One" Brown
    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
    | Oh, my ways are strange ways and new ways and old ways, | And deep ways and steep ways and high
    | ways and low, | I'm at home and at ease on a track that I know not, | And restless and lost on a
    | road that I know. | --Henry Lawson, Australian poet. |
    +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton,
    Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts
    shipped Worldwide http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
     
  3. "Wayne T" <[email protected]> writes:
    > gear is only 25.1. So that is the first disadvantage. Another big disadvantage is that it weighs
    > 3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight on a wheel is equivalent to two pounds elsewhere.

    That's i) not true and ii) especially not true of a hub.

    The real big disadvantage is that it costs $850 or more.
     
  4. x

    x Guest

    RE/
    >Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    >standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring and Mountain bikes.

    I've been riding one for almost a year now.

    It's noisy, less efficient, heavy, and ungodly expensive.

    Just ordered another one for my hardtail.
    -----------------------
    Pete Cresswell
     
  5. Whitfit

    Whitfit Guest

    Another big
    > disadvantage is that it weighs 3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight on a wheel is equivalent to
    > two pounds elsewhere. So, even the lack of a 2 chain rings and derailler systems probably wouldn't
    > offset this extra weight. Also, I would think that you might need a second smaller chainring so
    > that you can get the lower gears for touring.
    >

    Where on the wheel is one pound worth two pounds? At the rim, I can see some concern, but the speed
    and (tangential?) acceleration at the hub are pretty low, so I don't think this one pound vs. two
    pounds "old peleton tale" holds. Also, for touring, a couple extra pounds at your rack attatchment
    point is pretty insignificant, and 117 gear inches is only to let you spin down hills to keep your
    legs warm. Bump it back by a bit, don't worry about anything over 100 inches, and you'd be laughing
    with this setup. Of course, as a poor student, I could never afford it. But, someday..... Sigh...

    Whitfit.
     
  6. Jeff Wills

    Jeff Wills Guest

    "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Is anyone familiar with this hub? It reminds me of the old 3 speeds, only this is a 14 speed with
    > a 16 tooth rear sprocket and a 44 tooth chain ring. They compare it with a 48/36/26 tooth
    > chainrings and a 11-28 tooth cassette. Gear range is 1.58 - 8.31 m. Though it has a top gear of
    > 117.8, the low gear is only 25.1. So that is the first disadvantage. Another big disadvantage is
    > that it weighs 3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight on a wheel is equivalent to two pounds
    > elsewhere. So, even the lack of a 2 chain rings and derailler systems probably wouldn't offset
    > this extra weight. Also, I would think that you might need a second smaller chainring so that you
    > can get the lower gears for touring.
    >
    > Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    > standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring and Mountain bikes.

    Like Sheldon said, you can move the gear range up or down by changing the chainring or sprocket. If
    you want to go nuts, you can combine the Rohloff with a Schlumpf two-speed crank
    (http://www.schlumpf.ch/innovationse.html) and create a sealed 28-speed drivetrain with a 8-to-1
    range. There's a few recumbent trike running around with just such a drivetrain- searching for
    "Rohloff" on the IHPVA site will turn up descriptions and comments.

    Jeff
     
  7. Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Is anyone familiar with this hub? It reminds me of the old 3 speeds, only this is a 14 speed with a
    >16 tooth rear sprocket and a 44 tooth chain ring. They compare it with a 48/36/26 tooth chainrings
    >and a 11-28 tooth cassette. Gear range is 1.58 - 8.31 m. Though it has a top gear of 117.8, the low
    >gear is only 25.1. So that is the first disadvantage.

    "Only". You are not obliged to use it with that chainring/sprocket combination, either.

    My high gear is 105.8" (department of absurd precision); my low gear only
    30.3". A Rohloff with a 105" high gear has a roughly 22" low gear - how much more do you need?

    >Another big disadvantage is that it weighs 3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight on a wheel is
    >equivalent to two pounds elsewhere.

    This is a very garbled form of the observation that weight at the very edge of a wheel retards
    acceleration twice as much. The Rohloff does not live just under the tyre rubber!
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
     
  8. Nick Payne

    Nick Payne Guest

    Ditto. I have about 2-1/2 years use on my own bike and have just ordered another one for a tandem.

    Nick

    "(Pete Cresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > RE/
    > >Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    > >standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring
    and
    > >Mountain bikes.
    >
    > I've been riding one for almost a year now.
    >
    > It's noisy, less efficient, heavy, and ungodly expensive.
    >
    >
    > Just ordered another one for my hardtail.
     
  9. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Wayne T" <[email protected]> writes:
    > > gear is only 25.1. So that is the first disadvantage. Another big disadvantage is that it weighs
    > > 3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight
    on a
    > > wheel is equivalent to two pounds elsewhere.
    >
    > That's i) not true and ii) especially not true of a hub.

    I had always heard that you are better off taking off weight off a wheel then off the frame because
    removal of weight from the wheel allows you to accelerate quicker.
    >
    > The real big disadvantage is that it costs $850 or more.

    Yikes!!!! I didn't realize it was that much.
     
  10. "(Pete Cresswell)" wrote:
    >
    > RE/
    > >Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    > >standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring and Mountain bikes.
    >
    > I've been riding one for almost a year now.
    >
    > It's noisy, less efficient, heavy, and ungodly expensive.
    >
    > Just ordered another one for my hardtail.
    > -----------------------
    > Pete Cresswell

    Yes funny isn't it how people tend to collect Rohlhoff hubs.

    after all it needs an occasional oilchange, the bike feels heavier in the back, the thin shiftwire
    can snap, the ex extension doesn't shift as nice as the cheaper versions, you occasionally find a
    high gear between two lower ones.....

    Oh yes, and after 30000 km's the gearnumbers are worn off from the rubber shiftgrip
    --
    Marten
     
  11. Internally, a beautiful piece of precision craftsmanship. How can it be done so inexpensively? Comes
    with a quick release (all other internal hubs are nutted axles) 5 to 1 ratio change also more then
    any other hub. A nice addition to a bicycle. Steve "Speedy" Delaire

    Wayne T wrote:

    > Is anyone familiar with this hub? It reminds me of the old 3 speeds, only this is a 14 speed with
    > a 16 tooth rear sprocket and a 44 tooth chain ring. They compare it with a 48/36/26 tooth
    > chainrings and a 11-28 tooth cassette. Gear range is 1.58 - 8.31 m. Though it has a top gear of
    > 117.8, the low gear is only 25.1. So that is the first disadvantage. Another big disadvantage is
    > that it weighs 3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight on a wheel is equivalent to two pounds
    > elsewhere. So, even the lack of a 2 chain rings and derailler systems probably wouldn't offset
    > this extra weight. Also, I would think that you might need a second smaller chainring so that you
    > can get the lower gears for touring.
    >
    > Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    > standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring and Mountain bikes.

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
     
  12. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "(Pete Cresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > RE/
    > >Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    > >standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring
    and
    > >Mountain bikes.
    >
    > I've been riding one for almost a year now.
    >
    > It's noisy, less efficient, heavy, and ungodly expensive.

    Those are definitely 3 disadvantages. When you say less efficient, what do you mean?
    >
    >
    > Just ordered another one for my hardtail.

    If you ordered another one, I take it that the advantage of more efficient gearing must be
    the reason.
    > -----------------------
    > Pete Cresswell
     
  13. Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]g.uk> wrote in message
    >>"Wayne T" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>>gear is only 25.1. So that is the first disadvantage. Another big disadvantage is that it weighs
    >>>3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight on a wheel is equivalent to two pounds elsewhere.
    >>That's i) not true and ii) especially not true of a hub.
    >I had always heard that you are better off taking off weight off a wheel then off the frame because
    >removal of weight from the wheel allows you to accelerate quicker.

    I've heard that you should trust elementary applied mathematics over hearsay.
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
     
  14. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "whitfit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Another big
    > > disadvantage is that it weighs 3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight
    on a
    > > wheel is equivalent to two pounds elsewhere. So, even the lack of a 2
    chain
    > > rings and derailler systems probably wouldn't offset this extra weight. Also, I would think that
    > > you might need a second smaller chainring so
    that
    > > you can get the lower gears for touring.
    > >
    >
    > Where on the wheel is one pound worth two pounds? At the rim, I can see some concern, but the
    > speed and (tangential?) acceleration at the hub are pretty low, so I don't think this one pound
    > vs. two pounds "old peleton tale" holds.

    Hmmm, you may have a point there.

    Also, for touring, a couple extra pounds at
    > your rack attatchment point is pretty insignificant, and 117 gear inches is only to let you
    > spin down hills to keep your legs warm. Bump it back by a bit, don't worry about anything over
    > 100 inches

    That brings up a question. With a rear 9 speed of 12-14-16-18-20-23-26-30-34, would I be better off
    with my biggest chainring being a 46 or a 44. With a 46, my highest gears are 103.5, 88.7, 77.6 and
    with a 44, 99, 84.9, 74.3. I seem to remember reading somewhere that 100 is the max for efficient
    pedaling. Is 103.5 really all that much harder to pedal than a 100 and perhaps it might allow you to
    pedal a little faster than a 99? , and
    > you'd be laughing with this setup. Of course, as a poor student, I could never afford it. But,
    > someday..... Sigh...
    >
    >
    > Whitfit.
     
  15. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "Jeff Wills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Is anyone familiar with this hub? It reminds me of the old 3 speeds,
    only
    > > this is a 14 speed with a 16 tooth rear sprocket and a 44 tooth chain
    ring.
    > > They compare it with a 48/36/26 tooth chainrings and a 11-28 tooth
    cassette.
    > > Gear range is 1.58 - 8.31 m. Though it has a top gear of 117.8, the low gear is only 25.1. So
    > > that is the first disadvantage. Another big disadvantage is that it weighs 3.7 lbs. and each
    > > pound of extra weight
    on a
    > > wheel is equivalent to two pounds elsewhere. So, even the lack of a 2
    chain
    > > rings and derailler systems probably wouldn't offset this extra weight. Also, I would think that
    > > you might need a second smaller chainring so
    that
    > > you can get the lower gears for touring.
    > >
    > > Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    > > standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring
    and
    > > Mountain bikes.
    >
    > Like Sheldon said, you can move the gear range up or down by changing the chainring or sprocket.
    > If you want to go nuts, you can combine the Rohloff with a Schlumpf two-speed crank

    If I can get a range of say 19 - 100 and worst case 21.9 - 100 then one chain ring is all that I
    would need.
    > (http://www.schlumpf.ch/innovationse.html) and create a sealed 28-speed drivetrain with a 8-to-1
    > range. There's a few recumbent trike running around with just such a drivetrain- searching for
    > "Rohloff" on the IHPVA site will turn up descriptions and comments.
    >
    > Jeff
     
  16. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Wayne T wrote:
    >
    > > Is anyone familiar with this hub? It reminds me of the old 3 speeds,
    only
    > > this is a 14 speed with a 16 tooth rear sprocket and a 44 tooth chain
    ring.
    > > They compare it with a 48/36/26 tooth chainrings and a 11-28 tooth
    cassette.
    > > Gear range is 1.58 - 8.31 m. Though it has a top gear of 117.8, the low gear is only 25.1. So
    > > that is the first disadvantage.
    >
    > That's a disadvantage? ;-)
    >
    > If you don't like the placement of the gear range, you can move it up or down by installing a
    > different sized front or rear sprocket. The overall range is unusually wide, wider than anybody
    > actually needs.

    So long as you can get down to at least 21, better 17 without losing a high of at least 100 then it
    is great because you have more useable gears than the 27 speeds. Also, you can change gears under
    pressure and even standing still.
    >
    > > Comments? Anyone have experience with this hub? One other advantage is that you can change gears
    > > standing still. BTW, it is meant for touring
    and
    > > Mountain bikes.
    >
    > See: http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/rohloff.html
    >
    > Sheldon "Wish I Could Afford One" Brown
    > +-----------------------------------------------------------+
    > | Oh, my ways are strange ways and new ways and old ways, | And deep ways and steep ways and high
    > | ways and low, | I'm at home and at ease on a track that I know not, | And restless and lost on
    > | a road that I know. | --Henry Lawson, Australian poet. |
    > +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton,
    > Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts
    > shipped Worldwide http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
     
  17. Wayne T

    Wayne T Guest

    "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:DRF*[email protected]...
    > Wayne T <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >Is anyone familiar with this hub? It reminds me of the old 3 speeds,
    only
    > >this is a 14 speed with a 16 tooth rear sprocket and a 44 tooth chain
    ring.
    > >They compare it with a 48/36/26 tooth chainrings and a 11-28 tooth
    cassette.
    > >Gear range is 1.58 - 8.31 m. Though it has a top gear of 117.8, the low gear is only 25.1. So
    > >that is the first disadvantage.
    >
    > "Only". You are not obliged to use it with that chainring/sprocket combination, either.
    >
    > My high gear is 105.8" (department of absurd precision); my low gear only
    > 30.3". A Rohloff with a 105" high gear has a roughly 22" low gear - how much more do you need?

    Well, I think I would be better off sacrificing some of the high by bringing it down to 100" and,
    thus getting a low below 22. Sounds pretty close to a perfect gear ratio.
    >
    > >Another big disadvantage is that it weighs 3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight on
    a
    > >wheel is equivalent to two pounds elsewhere.
    >
    > This is a very garbled form of the observation that weight at the very edge of a wheel retards
    > acceleration twice as much. The Rohloff does not live just under the tyre rubber!
    > --
    > David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
     
  18. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    "Jeff Wills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Like Sheldon said, you can move the gear range up or down
    by changing
    > the chainring or sprocket. If you want to go nuts, you
    can combine
    > the Rohloff with a Schlumpf two-speed crank (http://www.schlumpf.ch/innovationse.html) and
    > create a
    sealed
    > 28-speed drivetrain with a 8-to-1 range. There's a few
    recumbent
    > trike running around with just such a drivetrain-
    searching for
    > "Rohloff" on the IHPVA site will turn up descriptions and
    comments.

    Now that's interesting. I've never seen one of those. Any idea how well they work? How well sealed
    are they? How much torque can they take? How efficient are they? I couldn't gather much from that
    website, which is a horror -- t took me five minutes of flipping through, and I still didn't figure
    out it was a planetary unit until about page 20 of the .pdf!

    Matt O.
     
  19. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    "Wayne T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > That brings up a question. With a rear 9 speed of 12-14-16-18-20-23-26-30-34, would I be better
    > off with my
    biggest chainring
    > being a 46 or a 44. With a 46, my highest gears are
    103.5, 88.7, 77.6 and
    > with a 44, 99, 84.9, 74.3. I seem to remember reading
    somewhere that 100 is
    > the max for efficient pedaling. Is 103.5 really all that
    much harder to
    > pedal than a 100 and perhaps it might allow you to pedal
    a little faster
    > than a 99?

    Only you can answer that question. Do you feel like you could use a higher gear when pedaling at
    high speed, perhaps on a long stretch of slight downhill? Or, could you use a lower gear while
    climbing? It all depends on your personal requirements, the terrain you ride, the loads you carry,
    and your personal fitness.

    Sheldon Brown has a gear calculator on his site, so you can plug in the gears you're using now to
    see what they are.

    Matt O.
     
  20. Wayne T wrote:
    > Is anyone familiar with this hub? It reminds me of the old 3 speeds, only this is a 14 speed with
    > a 16 tooth rear sprocket and a 44 tooth chain ring. They compare it with a 48/36/26 tooth
    > chainrings and a 11-28 tooth cassette. Gear range is 1.58 - 8.31 m. Though it has a top gear of
    > 117.8, the low gear is only 25.1. So that is the first disadvantage.

    Have you considered using different size chain rings? You can shift the placement of the range quite
    a bit this way. Also, if I recall correctly, you can get the hub cog in three different sizes. The
    range is pretty large, as large as most MTB's.

    > Another big disadvantage is that it weighs 3.7 lbs. and each pound of extra weight on a wheel is
    > equivalent to two pounds elsewhere. So, even the lack of a 2 chain rings and derailler systems
    > probably wouldn't offset this extra weight.

    While I'm not sure if that old adage is true, even if it is I suspect that it's less of a problem at
    the hub than at the rim/tire. Also, while the hub is heavy, you have to factor in that it is
    replacing a freehub, cassette, rear deraileur, front deraileur, front shifter and cabling for the
    front shifter. It is also allowing you to use a single crank rather than a triple (it has the range
    of a triple) and you'll be using less chain. You may also be able to use a slightly lighter bottom
    bracket with a single crank than a triple (shorter spindle). I suspect the net weight hit is pretty
    small and might even be a weight reduction depending upon what kind of gear you're replacing.

    For example, even with somewhat high end XT gear:

    XT front shifter (not STI) 205g (estimate, set/2) XT freehub 445g XT cassette 300g XT front
    deraileur 138g XT rear deraileur 255g
    ----
    1354g = 2.96 pounds.

    That doesn't even include the lighter crank, cabling or chain reduction. Those should add up to at
    least a half pound, probably more. Worst case, you take a net weight hit of less than a pound.

    > One other advantage is that you can change gears standing still.

    It has lots of advantages. The gears are protected from the elements. Little or no wheel dish (I
    haven't been able to find center-to-flange stats). I suspect that it's quieter than a deraileur. I
    suspect that chains would last longer with no deraileur action. I am curious about how fast and
    reliably it shifts, particularly under loads.

    --Bill Davidson
    --
    Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...