best internal shifting hub?

You
would think with all the gears inside the Rohloff that something is
likely to go in a relatively short period of time. I weigh over 200
pounds too. You can imagine that I'm seeing myself spend $800 and then
thrash the gears and its junk on the side of the road. Then I'm
opening the hub up trying to figure out where 100 gears fit in there.

No experience with the Rohloff, but myself and many other Bike Friday owners
have had good experience with the Sachs 3 X 7 (and 8 and 9...) hubs on
Tandem Twos'days.

Tandems make 200 pound loads look like nothing.


Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventu what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Compared to a road group, they are all about 2 pounds (1 kg) heavier.
They all are more reliable than a derailleur. Parts availability
should be good for all of them, although repairs will more likely
involve the factory rather than some guy in a garage. Going on 4,000
trouble-free miles on my Nexus-7, whose' one disadvantage is a
narrower overall gear range than on a typical derailleur bike.

Paul

Chris Neary wrote:

No experience with the Rohloff, but myself and many other Bike Friday owners
have had good experience with the Sachs 3 X 7 (and 8 and 9...) hubs on
Tandem Twos'days.

Tandems make 200 pound loads look like nothing.

But small wheels significantly reduce a hub's torque load compared to
full-sized ones.

Chalo Colina

RE/
Frankly I'd be a little surprised if the difference were a
whole two pounds or 900g, but it's in the ballpark.

It's got to depend on the weight of what it's replacing.

The one I put on my FS replaced a SRAM 9.0 setup. I weighed the whole bike
before and after and the diff was almost precisely 2 pounds.
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

I'm obviously in no position to quarrel with Pete Cresswell's scale,
but I wonder whether some of the weight pick-up he measured is
attributable to the torsion bar that one generally has to use when
converting existing bikes? The torsion bar is not needed if you are
building a new bike with Rohloff dropouts.
My Rohloff bike is a bit heavier, I imagine, than a derailleur bike
with a triple chainring (which one also needs to factor in, to be
fair), but I would have guessed that the number was a little lower
than reported by Pete. But since my bike was built for the Rohloff,
I'm not able to offer a precise before and after comparison.

As to the Speedhub's efficiency, there are some newish articles on
that topic in English at the Rohloff Germany site. (www.rohloff.de) My
own anecdotal conclusions, which now have been tested by riding the
same route on conventional and Speedhub-equipped bikes, are (i) I'm
pretty slow on any bike, (ii) the Speedhub seems equally efficient
when compared to a derailleur system in the top seven gears, and a bit
less efficient in the bottom seven, and (iii) the actual efficiency
differences are very minor. I'm coming to the view that many of us
(including me) are thrown off by the aural clues of the Speedhub, so
that when we hear those little gears whirring in some of the low
gears, we subconsciously interpret that as vast quantities of energy
being wasted. Unfortunately, I've found that switching to my
derailleur bike doesn't get me in fact to the top of the hill all that
much faster.

Finally, as to reliability, I do remember Rohloff boasting a year or
two ago that they never had the inner guts of a Speedhub fail in
service, but I don't know whether they can still make that claim. The
only issues that I have encountered, or remember reading about on the
web, are (i) the possibility of oil leaks, which in fact are said not
to be catastrophic at all (although a thirsty hub does run more
noisily), and (ii) the possibility of the snap-apart connectors that
enable you to disengage the shift cable, so you can remove the rear
wheel, failing, which turns your 14 speed into a 1 speed, until you
replace the cable.

Hope this helps.

Ed Kleinbard


"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote in message . ..
RE/
Frankly I'd be a little surprised if the difference were a
whole two pounds or 900g, but it's in the ballpark.

It's got to depend on the weight of what it's replacing.

The one I put on my FS replaced a SRAM 9.0 setup. I weighed the whole bike
before and after and the diff was almost precisely 2 pounds.
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

(Edward Kleinbard) wrote:

I'm obviously in no position to quarrel with Pete Cresswell's scale,
but I wonder whether some of the weight pick-up he measured is
attributable to the torsion bar that one generally has to use when
converting existing bikes? The torsion bar is not needed if you are
building a new bike with Rohloff dropouts.

I thought about that after having posted my comments. Both my
Rohloff-hubbed bikes have been equipped with the dropout torque tab
and thus did not use the torque arm and its QR socket. The difference
is probably less than 200g, but it does exist.

Chalo Colina

RE/
...wonder whether some of the weight pick-up he measured is
attributable to the torsion bar...

The bar, axle plate, and fittings to secure it to the stay weigh in at 125
grams. I used the SpeedBone instead...considerably less. So I think I'd stick
with the 2 pounds.

I'm coming to the view that many of us
(including me) are thrown off by the aural clues of the Speedhub, so
that when we hear those little gears whirring in some of the low
gears, we subconsciously interpret that as vast quantities of energy
being wasted.

I'd agree with that 100%...the sound *has* to be working on my mind - although
the second one I bought seems less noisy - they're using a different oil now and
we'll see when I change the old hub to the new oil.

Finally, as to reliability, I do remember Rohloff boasting a year or
two ago that they never had the inner guts of a Speedhub fail in
service,

Stay tuned - I'm working on being the first. Just switched from a 34-tooth
ring (not recommended by Rohloff) to a 32-tooth ring (even more not
recommended...). Even so I'm 220, I'm in early geezerhood and I can't imagine
that even with 32 on the front that I'm putting anywhere near the stress on the
thing that a couple of reasonably fit tandem riders would.


-----------------------
PeteCresswell

My 2 cents worth
Chet Kyle and Jim Browning set up a testing rig with the purpose of
finding the most efficient transmission system. Write up appeared in an
issue of Human Power.
Their conclusion:
Nothing beats a standard derailleur system for lowest power lost.
The Rohloff was good in some gears and bad in others. I seem to recall
the efficiency changed by 15% over the range of gears. Overall the
Rohloff is a beautiful piece of engineering and craftsmanship.
Strange as it sounds a Shimano Nexus 7 tested the best of all the
internal hubs in terms of efficiency in transferring power. Only a
couple of percent lower the a derailleur system.
Biggest problem with it, in my opinion is, no quick release for easy
tire repair.
Rohloff does have a QR
The old style Sturmey Archer tested poorly.
Speedy


Khoomei wrote:

What is the best internal shifting hub on these important points:
- reasonably lightweight compared to a road group
- reliable operation
- parts are available from the usual channels, not some guy working
out of his garage.
- has more than 3 speeds.



-----= 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! =-----