Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 8:03:06 AM UTC+1, T0m $herman wrote:
On 4/10/2015 11:47 AM, Joerg wrote:
Are you from Germany?

Remittance man from SA is the word on the street.

--
T0m $herm@n

That must be only on Lidl Tommi's street corner, where Lidl Tommi is his own gang of one because no one else wants him.

Andre Jute
Now, if you poor fellow had said "gigolo"...

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 8:15:59 AM UTC+1, T0m $herman wrote:
On 4/7/2015 6:54 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
BTW, Oil of Rohloff is wonderful stuff. It is light and clean and very economical as you just lay a light bead on top of the chain, so that a little bottle goes a long way. I bought six of the little bottles with my bike, and in 4506km used less than half of one bottle. The stuff's also cheap, about five Euro a bottle. It spreads and clings tenaciously, though, so you want to be careful where else it gets on your bike because it just doesn't want to be wiped off. It doesn't stain clothes, which is good.

How does it taste on a salad?

--
T0m $herm@n

Good. Something akin to M. Graham walnut oil which I'm more likely to have on my bike because I paint with it, whereas the Oil of Rohloff sits in an old ali pilot's case I have repurposed as a bicycle toolbox; the first post in this thread will explain to you why the Oil of Rohloff is not carried on the bike.

Andre Jute
Polymath

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 6:33:21 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:51:21 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:18:38 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:14:03 PM UTC+1, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-04-07 5:39 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

These days it's north of a lot more than 50K. But a downhiller like
you shouldn't make his judgement on what tourers do, but on what the
mudpluggers achieve: none of them have ever wrecked a Rohloff box
terminally. Rohloff installations are headed for 200,000 and there
isn't even one that has been terminated.


Oh there are. Example:

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-141.html

And when that stuff happens with a $1500 product I'd like it to be
covered by a truly honored lifetime warranty. Like on a pricey kitchen
faucet here where they sent us a new one for free.

That's not a destroyed hub. You send it to Rohloff and they fit the gubbins to a new shell. The only question is who pays for. In the normal course of events, regardless of the age of the hub, Rohloff does not charge users who change the oil in their hubs regularly.

In any event, you can now get 36 hole Rohloff hubs, and a wrecker like you should!

Andre Jute

That is a destroyed hub and it's clear abuse to use a 32 hole rear hub on a loaded tandem bicycle where 48 spokes are usually the recommended number. If Rolhof honours any warranty in that case then more power to their customer relations but the fact remains tthat the failure was cdaused by abuse of the hub.

Cheers

Okay, a hub damaged by bike builder or cyclist abuse. My point is that it isn't destroyed until it can't be rebuilt, or until you can't find anyone who wants to rebuild it (the case with my Shimano internal gear hubs). Be interesting to know if Rohloff fixed this one free of charge. Maybe, if it is on that page, the guy knew he was in the wrong and just didn't send it to them.

There was a time, vaguely in memory, when Rohloff's were forbidden in tandems. Some people used them in tandems all the same, unsuccessfully if they were stupid, successfully if they possessed and applied engineering smarts, as Chalo did by redrilling the hub to 48 holes. (That's Chalo's hub on the same page, with the scheme he worked out and had Isaacs drill for him.) SJS in England had an over-ring to strengthen the flange. Maybe other schemes as well; I wasn't overly interested as I'm not a tandemist. I also vaguely remember in that same distant time one or two Rohloffs with cracked rims in what was said to be normal (i.e. heavily loaded, harsh) service, that were replaced by Rohloff free of charge because the owners had done nothing wrong.

But none of that is relevant today. I haven't heard of a cracked flange in a very long time.

Later hubs arrived with stronger flanges that were permitted in tandems. Problem solved, long since.

I take the view that if a bruiser like me can't kill a Rolloff, it's good German machinery! I even have hope for a *real* wrecker like Joerg..

Andre Jute

BRUISER ? ura heart patient on an electrocycle

rebuild wahtsamatter ? yawl cannah afford a new one ? eyeyyhahhahhahhahha ! PIKERS

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 10:31:57 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 12:05:18 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
jbeattie x wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:05:32 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Joerg x wrote:
On 2015-04-09 10:17 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On 2015-04-09 17:03:26 +0000, Joerg said:

Rohloff hubs are very popular with MTB riders in Europe. A friend
visiting Germany rented a MTB there and to his surprise it came with a
Rohloff hub. Considered almost normal there. In the US, not so, never
seen one on the trails and I see a lot of bikes there.

[...]

The idea is that it is not normal/stupid to ride with an open gearbox in
bad conditions. According to that idea a gearhub is the way to go. If
you want a wide range (MTB) and a good efficiency (sportive riding) you
end up with a Rohloff hub naturally.
Your gearbox of your car is also closed and filled with oil. No?

How many Europeans are using Rohloff hubs? A lot of people don't like
the drag, weight, expense, complexity.

What drag and what weight? A Rohloff system complete weighs about the same as a derailleur system complete, and is between 1 and 4% less efficient than common top of the line derailleur systems, in return for which you don't have to clean it or tune it or spend constantly on replacement parts, and you can change multiple gears at once, even at standstill, a very considerable boon for utility riding. Check out the first post in this thread about maintenance saving. (Admittedly, you can get similar maintenance savings with the cheaper Shimano hub gearboxes, but they didn't last well in my hands.. Note however, Dutch and continental experience, where service is available, unlike here, is different for the Shimano gearboxes.)

As for the complexity, it's a bull**** argument. Complexity matters only if it causes breakdowns or complicated or expensive service requirements. None of this is true of the Rolloff. The Rohloff is deliberately designed and built like the best agricultural machinery, so that it and lasts forever, so complexity is irrelevant. The Rohloff is also designed to minimize and simplify the service requirement. Once a year or every 3000 miles you buy a $20 kit kit, unscrew a drainplug, screw in the syringe, put in cleaning oil, ride the bike a bit, drain the cleaning oil, put in the running oil, screw in the drain plug. Also, at the same time, you undo one thumbscrew on the gear cable end box, commonly called the klickbox, shoot some grease (any type) in there, and do up the thumbscrew again. This takes about an hour at a leisurely pace but needn't take more than twenty minutes, part of it spent riding. What's so onerous about that?

There is little if any long-term
pay-off for the type of riding they do.

They haven't thought it through, or they haven't taken a systems approach.

I know a lot of people who race
mountain bikes -- pros, top national riders, strong local riders, and
none of them use Rohloff hubs. None of my CX friends own them. I would
think that if they were clearly superior for the type of riding done by
this cohort (and the length of time they keep their bikes), I would see
at least one.

I've seen only one Rohloff hub besides mine. There are coming up to 200,000 Rohloff hubs in all the world. Most of them are thought to belong to mudpluggers (Herr Rohloff's sport when he was young; he designed the box for them). The touring and utility and road fitments of Rohloff must be a minority.. So I wouldn't expect to see many.

Rohloff makes a great hub with lots of benefits for a
certain crowd, but it is not the crowd I ride with.

Oh, it is, for some of them. They just haven't discovered it yet. When they do, they'll bend your ear about it till you want to scream.

-- Jay Beattie.

There is no drag. There is no complexity. The weight is insignificant. Do
you think riding in muddy conditions with an open gearbox is wise? Please
let the pro riders and top national riders out of the equation. In really
tough and muddy conditions I see a lot of trouble with a derailleur system,
skipping chains, chain suck are the main issues. Why do you think the pro
CX riders change their bike for a clean one every 1 or 2 laps?
--
Lou

See http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf

Everyone has seen that report, and the many misinterpretations of it. Unless you're an elite racer with several other bikes standing by to change onto, the very slight extra drag of a Rohloff hub gearbox is irrelevant. Your friends haven't put their minds in gear yet: Berto was working with perfectly new and clean derailleur systems. It is widely known that the efficiency of derailleur systems drop sharply once they get dirty, or worn to the eventual point where they seize up, zero movement. It follows that on your average derailleur system the efficiency is less than 100%, and generally by much more than 4%. At this point, instantly, a Rohloff becomes more efficient, because it is closed, cannot get dirty, and for real-life purposes it is wear-proof, and anyway, such wear as does occur (gears bedding in at about 5000 miles) are beneficial in reducing drag; otherwise such drag as it proffers is constant.

I'm also repeating reports by some people that certain ratios are especially draggy.

This is a psychosomatic effect. At the interface of the two gear clusters in the Rohloff gearbox when it is relatively new (and remember what Chalo said: a Rohloff is just starting to be run in when a Shimano HGB lies itself down to die) it is noisier than elsewhere, where a run-in gearbox is generally silent. This sound has much of the quality of human sighing or gasping for breath, just like a cyclist pedalling hard. Check Berto's numbers, and you'll discover this complaint isn't real.

And the Rohloff is a complex system. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/i...peedbild2.jpeg If the transmission goes bad, you have to ship it off for service or buy a replacement, AFAIK.

No. You very next link is to part of a service manual. If you get and read the whole document, which comes in three parts, you'll discover that you can do virtually all replacements and repairs yourself, and that the factory gives you fully illustrated instructions that no American manufacturer can match, and videos on their netsite. But most people just find it more convenient to send the box to Rohloff, who generally turns it over in a couple of days and sends it back by courier, at their expense. Tourers in Outer Bttfck find this very convenient because Fedex is where their tools ain't. You're looking at it wrong, as a burden rather than a very convenient service unique to membership of the Rohloff club.

http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/_mig...014_06_web.pdf

There are also local, national or regional Rohloff service agents fully trained to perform any necessary repair. In any event, these instances of a hub being returned to Rolloff are so rare and wonderful that they are individually known to the community, and thus loom larger than, for instance, my two worn out Shimano IGH, which I didn't even think worth mentioning when they happened, several years ago.

Assuming the bike is built for SS and doesn't need a chain tensioner, then I would definitely agree that IGHs avoid known problems with normal derailleur systems.

There are Rohloff mounting systems, so many that a complex decision tree is necessary, available for repurposed frames and also purpose-made frames. The purpose made frames don't require a chain tensioner or even a torque bar; generaly a frame must have sliders at the frame ends or provision for an eccentric bottom bracket to avoid a chain tensioner. Bikes supplied new with Rohloff boxes almost always do not have a chain tensioner.

There are some real benefits to IGHs, and I'm not denying that. But suggesting that Americans are crazy for not spending $1,200 USD for a Rohloff IGH is over the top, particularly since they are probably most beneficial in situations that people never see (e.g. deep mud).

The question is really whether cyclists aren't silly for spending money again and again, and their valuable time too, on derailleurs when instead they can buy a Rohloff once and forget it.

I've ridden my CX bike in deep mud, and shifting is not great, but it still works well enough -- and then I hose it off.

You'd go faster on a Rohloff after about three yards, the moment the first speck of mud gets on your derailleur and reduces its efficiency to below that of the sealed Rohloff.

I've never been so disappointed with shifting performance that I felt the need for an IGH.

You have much IGH experience? It's a conveninece that grows on you.

I've been on IGH since 2002 and simply cannot imagine going back to the nuisance and inconvenience on the road of derailleurs, and their constant time-wasting demands for attention.

The only time I've ever had a derailleur collapse and lock up the rear wheel, it had the good sense to do so about twenty paces from the gate of my LBS... I gave the bike to the LBS free of charge and ordered a bike from Gazelle with an IGH.

Andre Jute

On 11/04/15 18:05, Lou Holtman wrote:

Hey Jay I'm not saying that anyone, Amaricans or Europians, should spend
whatever a Rohloff hub costs. I was wondering why you see more Rohloff
hubs in Europe on normal bikes (I count 5 or 6 in the bike parking at
work just on utility bikes) than in the USA. Ride whatever you like, or
can affort. I will only respond if the arguments to not buy a Rohloff
hub or an other IGH are not correct such as drag, complexity or weight etc.


Last I checked, the weight of a Rohloff hub was quite a bit more than a
rear hub with a cassette, front and rear derailleur and one chainring.
Did I not add up the weight of components correctly?

--
JS

James writes:

On 11/04/15 18:05, Lou Holtman wrote:

Hey Jay I'm not saying that anyone, Amaricans or Europians, should spend
whatever a Rohloff hub costs. I was wondering why you see more Rohloff
hubs in Europe on normal bikes (I count 5 or 6 in the bike parking at
work just on utility bikes) than in the USA. Ride whatever you like, or
can affort. I will only respond if the arguments to not buy a Rohloff
hub or an other IGH are not correct such as drag, complexity or weight etc.


Last I checked, the weight of a Rohloff hub was quite a bit more than
a rear hub with a cassette, front and rear derailleur and one
chainring. Did I not add up the weight of components correctly?

Besides the price, the wide range and rather coarse steps is a bit
off-putting. My normal road bike has a gear range (highest/lowest)
under 3, the Moulton's is 3.3. The Rohloff's range is over 5. I'd
prefer something with finer steps and smaller range. I might consider
one for the Moulton---its original Suntour shifters has remained in
friction mode 'cause the indexed never worked properly, and the shifting
on it really sucks. But the price would be hard to justify. I'd
presumably be stuck with a chain tensioner.

--
Joe Riel

James schreef op 12-4-2015 om 4:40:
On 11/04/15 18:05, Lou Holtman wrote:

Hey Jay I'm not saying that anyone, Amaricans or Europians, should spend
whatever a Rohloff hub costs. I was wondering why you see more Rohloff
hubs in Europe on normal bikes (I count 5 or 6 in the bike parking at
work just on utility bikes) than in the USA. Ride whatever you like, or
can affort. I will only respond if the arguments to not buy a Rohloff
hub or an other IGH are not correct such as drag, complexity or weight
etc.


Last I checked, the weight of a Rohloff hub was quite a bit more than a
rear hub with a cassette, front and rear derailleur and one chainring.
Did I not add up the weight of components correctly?



I don't know. For a ATB system, the intended use, weight difference is
490 gr compared to Shimano XT (according to wikipedia article).
Insignificant for off road use. My Rohloff equipped hardtail ATB weighs
less than all the Full Suspension ATB's some off my riding buddies use
or the hardtails with lesser parts than Shimano XT. Still they say my
bike is heavy just because all the weight in in the back.

Lou

Joe Riel schreef op 12-4-2015 om 5:28:
James writes:

On 11/04/15 18:05, Lou Holtman wrote:

Hey Jay I'm not saying that anyone, Amaricans or Europians, should spend
whatever a Rohloff hub costs. I was wondering why you see more Rohloff
hubs in Europe on normal bikes (I count 5 or 6 in the bike parking at
work just on utility bikes) than in the USA. Ride whatever you like, or
can affort. I will only respond if the arguments to not buy a Rohloff
hub or an other IGH are not correct such as drag, complexity or weight etc.


Last I checked, the weight of a Rohloff hub was quite a bit more than
a rear hub with a cassette, front and rear derailleur and one
chainring. Did I not add up the weight of components correctly?

Besides the price, the wide range and rather coarse steps is a bit
off-putting. My normal road bike has a gear range (highest/lowest)
under 3, the Moulton's is 3.3. The Rohloff's range is over 5. I'd
prefer something with finer steps and smaller range. I might consider
one for the Moulton---its original Suntour shifters has remained in
friction mode 'cause the indexed never worked properly, and the shifting
on it really sucks. But the price would be hard to justify. I'd
presumably be stuck with a chain tensioner.


The 'big' 13% steps is a 'problem' for road use. Rohloff is meant for
ATB use or loaded touring were the gear range is necessary and the big
steps less important. My road bikes have derailleur system except the
winterbike where maintenance/reliability is more important.

Lou

Lou Holtman wrote:
Joe Riel schreef op 12-4-2015 om 5:28:
James writes:

On 11/04/15 18:05, Lou Holtman wrote:

Hey Jay I'm not saying that anyone, Amaricans or Europians, should spend
whatever a Rohloff hub costs. I was wondering why you see more Rohloff
hubs in Europe on normal bikes (I count 5 or 6 in the bike parking at
work just on utility bikes) than in the USA. Ride whatever you like, or
can affort. I will only respond if the arguments to not buy a Rohloff
hub or an other IGH are not correct such as drag, complexity or weight etc.


Last I checked, the weight of a Rohloff hub was quite a bit more than
a rear hub with a cassette, front and rear derailleur and one
chainring. Did I not add up the weight of components correctly?

Besides the price, the wide range and rather coarse steps is a bit
off-putting. My normal road bike has a gear range (highest/lowest)
under 3, the Moulton's is 3.3. The Rohloff's range is over 5. I'd
prefer something with finer steps and smaller range. I might consider
one for the Moulton---its original Suntour shifters has remained in
friction mode 'cause the indexed never worked properly, and the shifting
on it really sucks. But the price would be hard to justify. I'd
presumably be stuck with a chain tensioner.


The 'big' 13% steps is a 'problem' for road use. Rohloff is meant for ATB
use or loaded touring were the gear range is necessary and the big steps
less important. My road bikes have derailleur system except the
winterbike where maintenance/reliability is more important.

Lou

Could you squeeze a 2 gear cluster onto a Rohloff hub? A 17-16 with a
derailleur would split the Rohloff ratios quite nicely (admittedly, by
throwing away the one main advantage of the hub).

On 12/04/15 13:28, Joe Riel wrote:
James writes:

On 11/04/15 18:05, Lou Holtman wrote:

Hey Jay I'm not saying that anyone, Amaricans or Europians, should spend
whatever a Rohloff hub costs. I was wondering why you see more Rohloff
hubs in Europe on normal bikes (I count 5 or 6 in the bike parking at
work just on utility bikes) than in the USA. Ride whatever you like, or
can affort. I will only respond if the arguments to not buy a Rohloff
hub or an other IGH are not correct such as drag, complexity or weight etc.


Last I checked, the weight of a Rohloff hub was quite a bit more than
a rear hub with a cassette, front and rear derailleur and one
chainring. Did I not add up the weight of components correctly?

Besides the price, the wide range and rather coarse steps is a bit
off-putting. My normal road bike has a gear range (highest/lowest)
under 3, the Moulton's is 3.3. The Rohloff's range is over 5. I'd
prefer something with finer steps and smaller range. I might consider
one for the Moulton---its original Suntour shifters has remained in
friction mode 'cause the indexed never worked properly, and the shifting
on it really sucks. But the price would be hard to justify. I'd
presumably be stuck with a chain tensioner.


To be fair, the wide range is supposed to make it comparable to MTB (and
touring bike) gears. I agree that on a road bike the gear steps are too
coarse, but that's not what the beast is meant for.

--
JS