Shimano Nexus 8-speed Hubs



On 1 Feb 2005 06:46:05 -0800, "Zach" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Sheldon:
>
>I am curious why you are going to lace the Nexus hub to a 650B rim.
>Isn't that an archaic size? Why not use the common 559mm instead?


Ahhh, but that's what they'd be expecting.

This is Sheldon "why be normal" Brown we're talking about here.

Ron
 
I wrote:

>>It's been over a year since we first placed our order, but we finally
>>have received Shimano Nexus 8-speed hubs.
>>
>>I bought one myself, I'll be doing it up with 650B rims...

>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:


> Okay, I've read the Rivendell ode to this rim size, but aside from
> acting as some sort of revivalist preservation of the rim and tire
> standards so future generations can roll along on mid-century French
> bicycles, the attraction is purely aesthetic, right?
>
> Or is there some advantage to spanning the 559-622 mm interval I haven't
> perceived? Maybe a compromise for 29er-like off road virtues but with
> stronger wheels?


There are a very large number of very fine older bikes that only work
for this size wheel. It would be a shame if they were to go the way of
127 film cameras and become unusable for want of supplies.

Given that rims and tires are likely to continue to be available, albeit
in limited distribution, it's not unreasonable to find other
applications for the size.

For me the advantage is that I've got a couple of 700c "modern" bikes
with excessively tight tire clearance. One's an IRO, currently a fixed
gear, aluminum frame with a plastic fork, but I've found it
uncomfortably harsh to ride, and un-fenderable.

I'm hoping that switching to 584 wheels with medium-width tires will
cure this without screwing up the geometry.

There have been a number of reports on the BOB email list of people
upgrading racey bikes this way with great success.

This size is also a potential saviour for all the poor suckers who were
victims of GT's "700D" debacle.

The 584 size has real value for smaller riders compared with 622 (700C)
though it isn't clear that it has any serious advantage over 559 (26"
decimal.)

Sheldon "Gonna Give 'Em A Whirl" Brown
+---------------------------------------------------+
| The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
| Curiosity has its own reason for existing. |
| --Albert Einstein |
+---------------------------------------------------+
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
 
Zach Kaplan asked:

> Sheldon:
>
> I am curious why you are going to lace the Nexus hub to a 650B rim.
> Isn't that an archaic size? Why not use the common 559mm instead?
> Zach Kaplan


These wheels are going into a frame or frames made for 622 wheels.
Going from 622 to 559 lowers the bottom bracket excessively, likely has
too much effect on the handling, and requires more heroic measures to
make the brake reach.

It will initially be going on an IRO Jamie roy, though I also have a
plastic Trek frame hanging around that may be used with this wheelset
eventually. Both of these frames suffer insufficient tire clearance,
and I've found both of them uncomomfortably harsh to ride with 622 tires
that would squeeze into them.

Sheldon "It's An Experiment" Brown
+-------------------------------------+
| Only those who attempt the absurd |
| will achieve the impossible. |
| --Albert Einstein |
+-------------------------------------+
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
 
Pete Biggs wrote:

> Besides the extra gear, and the silent clutch, are there any differences
> in terms of perfomance, durabilty and weight between it and the Nexus 7
> hub?


The Nexus 8 is supposedly more efficent and durable, and better able to
withstand shifting under load. It is also heavier, about 1.8 kg.

Sheldon "Win Some, Lose Some" Brown
+---------------------------------------------+
| Do not needlessly endanger your lives |
| until I give you the signal. |
| --Dwight D. Eisenhower |
+---------------------------------------------+
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
 
Sheldon Brown wrote

>2.7 mm is a "heaping helping" of asymmetry? Most
>non-flip-flop hubs have at least this much asymmetry.
>
>See: http://sheldonbrown.com/nexus8/pages/28.htm
>
>Even typical track hubs are more asymmetrical than this, viz:
>
>Campagnolo 5-13 depending on model,
>Miche at 15,
>Phil Wood at 14 mm,
>Sun Tour at 6 mm.


Is this a fair comparison?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the numbers given for Campi,
Miche, Phil, SunTour are WL-WR, where WL and WR are
flange-to-center distances, as defined on the page at
http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/spocalc.htm

WL-WR for the Nexus 8 is 5.4mm, not 2.7mm.

0mm would be nicer, but I don't think 5.4mm is an awful lot.
At least Shimano went with 36 holes instead of 32.

Setting practical matters aside for a moment, does
anyone like the look of this hub? I think it's ugly.

Tom Ace
 
I wrote:

>>2.7 mm is a "heaping helping" of asymmetry? Most
>>non-flip-flop hubs have at least this much asymmetry.
>>
>>See: http://sheldonbrown.com/nexus8/pages/28.htm
>>
>>Even typical track hubs are more asymmetrical than this, viz:
>>
>>Campagnolo 5-13 depending on model,
>>Miche at 15,
>>Phil Wood at 14 mm,
>>Sun Tour at 6 mm.

>

Tom Ace demurred:
>
> Is this a fair comparison?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the numbers given for Campi,
> Miche, Phil, SunTour are WL-WR, where WL and WR are
> flange-to-center distances, as defined on the page at
> http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/spocalc.htm
>
> WL-WR for the Nexus 8 is 5.4mm, not 2.7mm.


You're right, I misread the diagram.

> 0mm would be nicer, but I don't think 5.4mm is an awful lot.


Right.

> At least Shimano went with 36 holes instead of 32.


I'm guessing this is a dig at Rohloff. Rohloff is stuck with 32
onacountta the 8 bolts that hold the left end of the hub to the shell.

While I've long been an advocate of 36 spoke wheels, The Rohloff hub has
such huge flanges, as does the Nexus 8, as to give an unusually generous
lateral bracing angle.

I've sold a LOT of Rohloff hubs, many to very abusive riders, and have
yet to hear of a broken spoke on a Rohloff wheel.

We tend to get used to the inherently weak highly-dished wheels used on
derailer bikes, and to forget how very much stronger a one-sprocket
wheel can be.

> Setting practical matters aside for a moment, does
> anyone like the look of this hub? I think it's ugly.


Yep. Fortunately, I can't see the rear hub when I'm riding.

This is also partially offset by the super neat shift cable routing.
Shimano's system of keeping all of the moving parts inboard of the
chainstays makes them less kludgy looking as well as less prone to
impact damage than virtually all other multispeed systems.

Sheldon "Huit" Brown
+--------------------------------+
| One does not win at chess by |
| seizing every opportune pawn |
| -- Michael Flynn |
+--------------------------------+
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
 
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:55:54 -0500, Sheldon Brown
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've also scanned and put up the Service Manual for these hubs at:
>
>http://sheldonbrown.com/nexus8




Thanks!

I have this on my Bianchi Milano, works great, very easy to
shift. Not sure I would want to take one apart, looks complex.



---
"BitwiseBob" - Bob Anderson
Eugene Oregon
 
Can the brake work with other hubs, or does it only fit the Nexus
hubs?
 
Sheldon Brown wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>
> > Confound it. True to clueless form, Shimano have dished up a
> > heaping helping of asymmetrical flange offset on a hub that
> > didn't need to have any.

>
> 2.7 mm is a "heaping helping" of asymmetry? Most non-flip-flop
> > hubs have at least this much asymmetry.


Ah, I looked at your photo of the hub without the roller brake or its
fixing nut, and I saw a bunch of offset. But as installed, the offset
is pretty reasonable.

It does make me wonder why they wouldn't make it genuinely symmetrical
for ease of wheelbuilding, though.

I continue to be completely vexed by the Sturmey Archer gearhubs that
build into dished wheels. I reckoned Shimano had given us another such
abomination, but I was wrong.

> > Another nugget on the towering mountain of reasons not to buy their
> > ****-- like I really needed another one.

>
> "****?" This is the best multi-speed hub you can buy for less than
> $700! Sounds like predjudice to me.


I beg to differ-- I have owned both Sachs/SRAM 7 speed hubs and Shimano
7-speed hubs, and the difference is astounding. SRAM S7 hubs give a
wider range of gears and a *much* smaller amount of drag, while seeming
generally more rugged. I have never heard of someone wearing out or
overloading a Sachs or SRAM 7-speed hub, but I have heard direct
accounts of Nexus hub failures (requiring gear body replacement) from
local shop mechanics. My two Nexus 7 hubs are on small-wheeled art
bikes that doesn't get very many miles, so I've not laid waste to them
yet.

When I ride my Nexus-7-hubbed bikes, I feel like I'm losing a whole
gear ratio to system inefficiency. Admittedly this is a tough thing to
quantify, but I don't find my SRAM hubs to display any more noticeable
drag than my derailleur bikes. They seem to drive at least as freely
as my Rohloff hub.

The Nexus 8 hub is going to have to be a *whole lot better* than the
Nexus 7 before it can be considered equal to or better than the SRAM
S7. It doesn't have a wider overall range than the SRAM S7, and it
obviously uses more sets of plantaries. The presence of a true 1:1
ratio in the new Nexus hub bodes well, but I suspect that in the field
it will prove to be a lesser product than the SRAM.

Chalo Colina
 
Tom Sherman said:
hhu wrote:

> ...
> If one were to ignore the increased width, how hard would it be to fit
> a cassette to one of these hubs? I know it sounds silly, but us DIY
> recumbent people are always looking for new ways to handle gearing.


Now I want a 10-speed cassette on a Rohloff hub, and a quadruple crank
on a Schlumpf bottom bracket. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Earth
1120 still won't get in the Guiness Book. :D
 
hhu wrote:
> Can the brake work with other hubs, or does it only fit the Nexus
> hubs?


The same brake fits Nexus 4 & 7 speeds, also Nexave cassette Freehubs.
I believe the new Sturmey-Archer 8-speed has the same brake interface too.

I just finished building up my Nexus 8 rear wheel, haven't tried it yet
though...

Sheldon "Rolling" Brown
+---------------------------------------------------+
| In theory, there's no difference between theory |
| and practice; but, in practice, there is. |
+---------------------------------------------------+,
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
 
Chalo wrote:

> Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
>>Chalo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Confound it. True to clueless form, Shimano have dished up a
>>>heaping helping of asymmetrical flange offset on a hub that
>>>didn't need to have any.

>>
>>2.7 mm is a "heaping helping" of asymmetry? Most non-flip-flop
>>
>>>hubs have at least this much asymmetry.

>
>
> Ah, I looked at your photo of the hub without the roller brake or its
> fixing nut, and I saw a bunch of offset. But as installed, the offset
> is pretty reasonable.
>
> It does make me wonder why they wouldn't make it genuinely symmetrical
> for ease of wheelbuilding, though.
>
> I continue to be completely vexed by the Sturmey Archer gearhubs that
> build into dished wheels. I reckoned Shimano had given us another such
> abomination, but I was wrong.
>
>
>>>Another nugget on the towering mountain of reasons not to buy their
>>>****-- like I really needed another one.

>>
>>"****?" This is the best multi-speed hub you can buy for less than
>>$700! Sounds like predjudice to me.

>
>
> I beg to differ-- I have owned both Sachs/SRAM 7 speed hubs and Shimano
> 7-speed hubs, and the difference is astounding. SRAM S7 hubs give a
> wider range of gears


A bike with an Alivio group will have a wider range than a bike with
Dura-Ace. Does that mean Alivio is better than Dura-Ace?

The Sram 7-speed and the Nexus 8 speed have the same range.

Sram 39/16 gives 37.5 - 114.5 inches

Nexus 8 42/16 gives 37.4 - 114.5 inches with the same wheel size.

See: http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/internal.html

The Sram is afflicted with some excessively large jumps in the middle
of its range. 4 - 5 is a whopping 24% jump, 65.8 to 81.6 inches in the
example shown. 3 - 4 isn't much better, 23.5% (53.3 to 65.8 inches)

The jumps on the Sram 7-speed, from bottom to top are:

19.3%, 19.1%, 23.5%, 24.0%, 19.4%, 17.6%


The worst jump on the Shimano is 5 - 6, 22.3% (70.0 - 86.7 in the
example listed.)

The jumps in the Nexus 8 are:

22.2%, 16.1%, 13.8%, 17.5% 22.3% 16.0% and 13.8%

These seem a lot friendlier to me.

> and a *much* smaller amount of drag,


That is not a universally held opinion. In any case, the 8-speed Nexus
is touted to be rather more efficient than the 7-speed.

I do own a Nexus 7, replaced a Sturmey-Archer FM 4 speed, and the Nexus
seemed noticeably easier rolling than the Sturmey.

> while seeming
> generally more rugged.


Some parts are, some parts aren't. Shimano's sheltered shift linkage
is very much less prone to damage than Sram's "clickbox" hanging off the
end of the axle.

I personally see no clear winner between the two 7-speed models, but 8
trumps 7.

> I have never heard of someone wearing out or
> overloading a Sachs or SRAM 7-speed hub, but I have heard direct
> accounts of Nexus hub failures (requiring gear body replacement) from
> local shop mechanics. My two Nexus 7 hubs are on small-wheeled art
> bikes that doesn't get very many miles, so I've not laid waste to them
> yet.
>
> When I ride my Nexus-7-hubbed bikes, I feel like I'm losing a whole
> gear ratio to system inefficiency.


On the "small wheeled art bikes?" Doesn't sound to me like a
particularly valid basis for comparison.

> Admittedly this is a tough thing to
> quantify, but I don't find my SRAM hubs to display any more noticeable
> drag than my derailleur bikes. They seem to drive at least as freely
> as my Rohloff hub.
>
> The Nexus 8 hub is going to have to be a *whole lot better* than the
> Nexus 7 before it can be considered equal to or better than the SRAM
> S7.


From what I hear, it is. Not only more efficient, but with better
shifting under load, and combining the nice gear spacing of the Shimano
7 with the overall range of the Sram 7.

> It doesn't have a wider overall range than the SRAM S7, and it
> obviously uses more sets of plantaries. The presence of a true 1:1
> ratio in the new Nexus hub bodes well, but I suspect that in the field
> it will prove to be a lesser product than the SRAM.


There are actually quite a few of them in the field...what's new is the
availability of loose hubs. The ones on the road came on complete
bikes...we sell several models with this hub. Everybody I've spoken to
who has bought one loves it.

I think you're a bit too quick to condemn a product that you evidently
haven't even tried, just on the basis of what you "suspect."

Sheldon "Hope To Get Mine On The Road Soon" Brown
+--------------------------------------------+
| Opinions founded on prejudice are always |
| sustained with the greatest violence. |
| --Hebrew Proverb |
+--------------------------------------------+
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
 
"Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>
> > Besides the extra gear, and the silent clutch, are there any

differences
> > in terms of perfomance, durabilty and weight between it and

the Nexus 7
> > hub?

>
> The Nexus 8 is supposedly more efficent and durable, and better

able to
> withstand shifting under load. It is also heavier, about 1.8

kg.

I do not follow this segment of the market. Why do people want
an internal geared hub? It seems incredibly complicated. -- Jay
Beattie.
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> I do not follow this segment of the market. Why do people want
> an internal geared hub? It seems incredibly complicated.


Perhaps you would be in the market for a car with an external
derailleur system then?

On one hand, such a car would be simpler, possibly more efficient, and
probably lighter than one with a gearbox. On the other, it would throw
its chain at inopportune times and wear out quickly, all the while
making a disgusting mess, demanding constant maintenance, and likely
posing a operating hazard.

This correlates nicely to my opinion of derailleur bikes as compared to
gearhub bikes. Subtract the hazardous operation, and substitute a
structurally flawed rear wheel.

Chalo Colina
 
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:36:15 -0800, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Pete Biggs wrote:
>>
>> > Besides the extra gear, and the silent clutch, are there any

>differences
>> > in terms of perfomance, durabilty and weight between it and

>the Nexus 7
>> > hub?

>>
>> The Nexus 8 is supposedly more efficent and durable, and better

>able to
>> withstand shifting under load. It is also heavier, about 1.8

>kg.
>
>I do not follow this segment of the market. Why do people want
>an internal geared hub? It seems incredibly complicated. -- Jay
>Beattie.


Dear Jay,

You can shift to any gear you please while standing still at
a stop sign.

Less dish to accomodate 10 cogs means a stronger rear wheel.

Your chain doesn't fall off so easily because there's no
derailleur to become too enthusiastic.

Internal gears hardly wear at all compared to external cogs.

Internal gears are much less prone to damage than a hind
derailleur.

The small extra weight is hard to notice. So is the drag.

The large price tag warns other members of the herd of your
status.

The complicated innards appeal to the gadget crazy.

The simplified exterior appeals to the practical.

The return to 3-speed hubs appeals to the nostalgic.

You no longer worry about fiddling with 10 gear ratios in
back.

You do get to fuss with what single cog you want in the
back.

You get to play with new areas of Sheldon's gearing
calculators.

You get to talk about it on rec.bicycles.tech--look at the
interest!

You may well be the only boy on your block with one.

I expect that others will raise advantages that should have
been obvious to the meanest intelligence, but those were
what occurred to me at the drop of a hat.

Carl Fogel
 
In <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:

>Dear Jay,


>You can shift to any gear you please while standing still at
>a stop sign.


[snip, etc, etc]

You go through the gears in order from 1 to 7 (or 8 or 12) without worrying
about whether to shift cogs, or chainrings, or both.

Mike
 
Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
> The jumps on the Sram 7-speed, from bottom to top are:
>
> 19.3%, 19.1%, 23.5%, 24.0%, 19.4%, 17.6%
>
> The jumps in the Nexus 8 are:
>
> 22.2%, 16.1%, 13.8%, 17.5% 22.3% 16.0% and 13.8%


While I've never had any objection to the gear distribution of any of
my gearhubs, it's true that the Nexus 8 looks better in that regard.

> Shimano's sheltered shift linkage is very much less prone to
> damage than Sram's "clickbox" hanging off the end of the axle.


That's true. It's also a lot more vexing to connect and disconnect
when you get a flat. I remember fidgeting with the shift cable on my
cargo bike for about 30 minutes one night before giving up and riding
in the few gears I could get. Back at home, with decent lighting and
all my tools, it was not too big an ordeal to get the thing working
properly-- but it still took more of a procedure than the other
gearhubs I've used.

I have been wondering: whatever became of the Sturmey Archer 8-speed
hub? It looked like it had a cable attachment that was inboard of the
dropout, but simpler than that of the Nexus.

> I personally see no clear winner between the two 7-speed models, but

8
> trumps 7.


I can't see how you could have ridden both the SRAM S7 and the Nexus 7
and found them comparable. I am glad that I bought my Nexus 7 hubs
below dealer cost on eBay, because I was disappointed with them after
having ridden only the SRAM. If not for that, I suppose I would have
found the Nexus OK.

The favorable impressions I have had of my Nexus 7s are these:

The axles have not bent or broken (nor have any of my gearhubs' axles).

There have been no shifting problems that I could not adjust away.

They have never left me stranded or stuck in only one gear.

--That's not too bad, considering the possibilities. Better than
derailleurs, in any case.

> > When I ride my Nexus-7-hubbed bikes, I feel like I'm losing a whole
> > gear ratio to system inefficiency.

>
> On the "small wheeled art bikes?" Doesn't sound to me like a
> particularly valid basis for comparison.


Not all choppers are as efficient as normal bikes, but mine is. Here's
an early revision of my Nexus 7 equipped chopper that has accumulated
the most mileage: http://deadbabybikes.org/bikes/choppa.htm

At this time I use a Tioga Comp Pool in the front and a Primo Comet 2.1
in the back, with about 65 and 90 psi respectively. It think it
warrants a direct efficiency comparison to my SRAM-hubbed Surly 1x1
with Ritchey Moby Bites.

My other Nexus 7 equipped bike is a 3-wheeled load-carrying platform,
and you'd be correct to assume that it doesn't constitute a fair
comparison to a regular bike.

> Sheldon "Hope To Get Mine On The Road Soon" Brown


I hope you are right that the Nexus 8 is a categorical improvement over
the Nexus 7.

> +--------------------------------------------+
> | Opinions founded on prejudice are always |
> | sustained with the greatest violence. |
> | --Hebrew Proverb |
> +--------------------------------------------+


Having been ripped off, let down, and seriously injured by Shimano
products, I will no longer give Shimano the benefit of the doubt as to
whether their junk is satisfactory. I will leave it to more credulous
consumers to do the proof testing that Shimano evidently decline to do
themselves.

Chalo Colina
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:36:15 -0800, "Jay Beattie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Pete Biggs wrote:
> >>
> >> > Besides the extra gear, and the silent clutch, are there

any
> >differences
> >> > in terms of perfomance, durabilty and weight between it

and
> >the Nexus 7
> >> > hub?
> >>
> >> The Nexus 8 is supposedly more efficent and durable, and

better
> >able to
> >> withstand shifting under load. It is also heavier, about

1.8
> >kg.
> >
> >I do not follow this segment of the market. Why do people

want
> >an internal geared hub? It seems incredibly complicated. --

Jay
> >Beattie.

>
> Dear Jay,
>
> You can shift to any gear you please while standing still at
> a stop sign.
>
> Less dish to accomodate 10 cogs means a stronger rear wheel.
>
> Your chain doesn't fall off so easily because there's no
> derailleur to become too enthusiastic.
>
> Internal gears hardly wear at all compared to external cogs.
>
> Internal gears are much less prone to damage than a hind
> derailleur.
>
> The small extra weight is hard to notice. So is the drag.
>
> The large price tag warns other members of the herd of your
> status.
>
> The complicated innards appeal to the gadget crazy.
>
> The simplified exterior appeals to the practical.
>
> The return to 3-speed hubs appeals to the nostalgic.
>
> You no longer worry about fiddling with 10 gear ratios in
> back.
>
> You do get to fuss with what single cog you want in the
> back.
>
> You get to play with new areas of Sheldon's gearing
> calculators.
>
> You get to talk about it on rec.bicycles.tech--look at the
> interest!
>
> You may well be the only boy on your block with one.
>
> I expect that others will raise advantages that should have
> been obvious to the meanest intelligence, but those were
> what occurred to me at the drop of a hat.


That probably covers it. Live and learn.

It sure must suck to change a flat, though, and it looks like you
have to have a frame with horizontal drop-outs and an MTB-type
bar for the grip shift. You still have a cog and chain to get
dirty (but less to clean, obviously). And you have eight
gears -- which reminds me of the old days riding on a four-speed
freewheel owned by my Bulgarian cycling coach and fitted on the
neutral support wheel in the team vehicle (really, this is not a
joke) -- except the Nexus has an awesome range. It would make
for a nice commuting bike, except for the flat repair part. --
Jay Beattie.
 
Jay Beattie wrote:

> It sure must suck to change a flat, though, and it looks like you
> have to have a frame with horizontal drop-outs and an MTB-type
> bar for the grip shift.


I can't speak about the other hubs, but with a Rohloff it's not
that big a pain to get the wheel off for changing a flat.

You don't have to use an MTB bar. Norwid (and possibly others)
make drop bar arrangements that accept a MTB-style twist grip.

I wouldn't be surprised if internal gearing gets more popular
with time.

Imagine that in shifting your car's transmission, getting to
the next gear in sequence in some cases required moving one
lever forward and another lever backward several notches.
No one would buy a car with controls like that, but it's
the status quo in bicycling.

Tom Ace
 
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:31:33 +0000 (UTC), Michael Wileman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
>
>>Dear Jay,

>
>>You can shift to any gear you please while standing still at
>>a stop sign.

>
>[snip, etc, etc]
>
>You go through the gears in order from 1 to 7 (or 8 or 12) without worrying
>about whether to shift cogs, or chainrings, or both.
>
>Mike


Dear Mike,

A good point, given the potential confusion of a triple with
ten rear cogs.

Carl Fogel