Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

A concurrent thread on a big gear range made me wonder what width one
could achieve in hub gears by ignoring the recommended chainring/
sprocket ratio, which for Rohloff appears to be a fraction under 2.5
and for the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub is specifically given as from
2.0 to 2.1. I have no idea how long the hubs would survive under
abusive handling as in some of the examples below. All numbers in gear
inches.

With a 37-622 tyre and 46-16 gears, the Rohloff Speed Hub would give a
range from a notch or two below many mountain bikes to pretty well
beyond what most people could manage on the flat. Fourteen gears in
gear inches developed:

22
25
28
32
37
42
47
54
61
70
79
90
102
116

Just for comparison, here are the gear inches for the 14 gears of the
Rohloff with a more reasonable, and possibly permitted (I've seen it
several times), 42-16 setup. Still a very respectable spread, and
probably more pleasurable to use:

20
23
26
29
33
38
43
49
56
64
72
82
93
106

Adding the Schlumpf Speed Drive to a Rohloff Speed Hub seems
unnecessary: it will add only four useful gears at most, the rest
being duplicated.

Okay, let's look at the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub.

With a 37-622 tyre and the same 46-16 gears as inour first example,
but in this case even more abusive, the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub
combined with the Schlumpf Mountain Drive would give an even wider
useful spread, 14 unique gears out of 16 covering from a Himalayan low
gear to 127in to pose with in cafe society. (This covers the entirely
unreasonable 18 to 123in someone asked for in a concurrent thread, and
a bit more.)

Gear Direct SMD
1 42 17
2 51 20
3 59 24
4 67 27
5 79 32
6 97 39
7 112 45
8 127 51

I was speaking to a guy in the parts department at Volvo in Gothenburg
a few years ago, and when he heard I planted a Chevy mouse motor in
one of their estates and was now supercharging it and looking to use a
few gennie Volvo parts, he said thickly, "Doncha tell Warranty. Inna
flash Warranty turn your ash to grash." (On a tip from this colourful
fellow I ordered the parts I wanted a lot cheaper from Rolls-Royce
than from Volvo; they bought them the same place but the Volvo markup
was higher...) I imagine Shimano will turn one's warranty, and one's
ass, to grass in a flash if they hear about a 46-16 FR tooth ratio on
one of their Nexus hubs, when they went to the trouble of printing the
ratio warning on the cover of the spec sheet.

So let's try 38-18, which at 2.11 recurring is arguably within the
permitted ratio, and can be built with Shimano's goodlooking and
reasonably priced own-brand parts intended for the hub gear bikes.
With the Schlumpf Mountain Drive, that gives 14 unique gears that
covers everything from loaded goatherding to pretty fast touring:

31 12
37 15
43 17
49 20
58 23
71 28
82 33
94 37

It does look like iconoclasm and scoffjawing the warranty is
unnecessary. With either the Rohloff or the Nexus/Schlumpf combination
you can get nicely spaced gear ratios over a very wide operating band.
The designers of those hubs and geared bottom bracket got it right.

In fact, riding daily in the low rolling hills of West Cork, I find
38-19 sets of teeth just right on the Nexus gear hub without the need
for the Schlumpf geared bottom bracket; it gives me the following gear
inch development for the 8 gears, perfect for day rides on my
particular countryside without ever having to push:

29
35
41
47
55
67
78
89

Sprockets with any number of teeth you can want are readily available,
so for another use, say loaded alpine touring, I would not hesitate to
change the sprocket to give a ratio that is not permitted. I think the
Nexus hub is a lot sturdier than Shimano lets on, and it is widely
known that the Rohloff hub is panzer.

Andre Jute
Libertarian: a conservative who talks up a good liberal line.

Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
A concurrent thread on a big gear range made me wonder what width one
could achieve in hub gears by ignoring the recommended chainring/
sprocket ratio, which for Rohloff appears to be a fraction under 2.5
and for the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub is specifically given as from
2.0 to 2.1. I have no idea how long the hubs would survive under
abusive handling as in some of the examples below. All numbers in gear
inches.

It's a pity you don't understand the simple rules about permitted gearing.

They specify a minimum gearing, ie on a rohloff, 40/17, 38/16, 36/15,
32/13t, or 40/16 etc for 100kg+ riders and tandems. Put a smaller chainring
than recommended, and you'll be putting more force on the hub than it's
designed for. (actually, you can push it, but that's not relevant for the
purposes of this discussion).

So, the 46/16 you claim is not permissible is in fact entirely legit - it's
rather easier on the hub than the minimum permissible gearing.

Ditto 42/16.

Not abusive at all.

32/16 would be abusive.

With a 37-622 tyre and the same 46-16 gears as inour first example,
but in this case even more abusive, the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub
combined with the Schlumpf Mountain Drive would give an even wider
useful spread, 14 unique gears out of 16 covering from a Himalayan low
gear to 127in to pose with in cafe society. (This covers the entirely
unreasonable 18 to 123in someone asked for in a concurrent thread, and
a bit more.)

You'll have that nice range, but using the mountain drive will break it. The
mountain drive gives the equivalent of a 18t chainring with your 46. The
minimum with a 16t sprocket on the nexus if your 2.1 is correct is a 32t,
though I've seen people using 29/17ish gearing.

And of course the wheel size makes no difference to the permitted gearing -
it does however make a difference to the effective gearing you end up with.
If you stick a Rohloff in a small wheel, you can get some pretty small
gears.

http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/k_gear.shtml

is quite cool though.

clive

Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:43:46 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
A concurrent thread on a big gear range made me wonder what width one
could achieve in hub gears by ignoring the recommended chainring/
sprocket ratio, which for Rohloff appears to be a fraction under 2.5
and for the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub is specifically given as from
2.0 to 2.1. I have no idea how long the hubs would survive under
abusive handling as in some of the examples below. All numbers in gear
inches.

It's a pity you don't understand the simple rules about permitted gearing.

They specify a minimum gearing, ie on a rohloff, 40/17, 38/16, 36/15,
32/13t, or 40/16 etc for 100kg+ riders and tandems. Put a smaller chainring
than recommended, and you'll be putting more force on the hub than it's
designed for. (actually, you can push it, but that's not relevant for the
purposes of this discussion).

So, the 46/16 you claim is not permissible is in fact entirely legit - it's
rather easier on the hub than the minimum permissible gearing.

Ditto 42/16.

Not abusive at all.

32/16 would be abusive.

With a 37-622 tyre and the same 46-16 gears as inour first example,
but in this case even more abusive, the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub
combined with the Schlumpf Mountain Drive would give an even wider
useful spread, 14 unique gears out of 16 covering from a Himalayan low
gear to 127in to pose with in cafe society. (This covers the entirely
unreasonable 18 to 123in someone asked for in a concurrent thread, and
a bit more.)

You'll have that nice range, but using the mountain drive will break it. The
mountain drive gives the equivalent of a 18t chainring with your 46. The
minimum with a 16t sprocket on the nexus if your 2.1 is correct is a 32t,
though I've seen people using 29/17ish gearing.

And of course the wheel size makes no difference to the permitted gearing -
it does however make a difference to the effective gearing you end up with.
If you stick a Rohloff in a small wheel, you can get some pretty small
gears.

http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/k_gear.shtml

is quite cool though.

clive

Dear Clive,

For those curious about the details . . .

Here's the short but clear Rohloff page that explains that it's the
ratio between front chainring and rear sprocket that matters to the
hub, not the wheel size:

http://www.rohloff.de/en/info/faq/fa...289/index.html

And here's the Rohloff page that explains the specific number of
front/rear teeth with the lowest front/rear sprocket ratio (not
overall gearing including wheel size) that they think wise:

http://www.rohloff.de/en/info/faq/fa...289/index.html

As the page explains, the 2.35:1 front/rear ratio is the minimum
acceptable ratio for normal use, a 40/17 (2.35:1) being as low a ratio
as Rohloff thinks a normal rider should use. For a heavier rider
(100kg+) or a tandem, Rohloff warns that the minimum should be raised
to 40/16 (2.50:1).

Increasing the size of the front chain-ring is okay. That is, 40/16 is
2.50:1, so adding eight teeth for 48:16 (3.00:1) is fine.

In other words, you can gear a Rohloff's exposed front/rear up higher
and higher--it's fine to use the high-speed 52x12 (4.33:1) instead of
the 39x13 (3.00:1). That's a selling point for small-rear-wheel bikes
that need higher gearing.

But you don't want to go the other way and gear down in hopes of low
mountain-bike gearing--a 39 front and a 28 rear (1.39:1) would be a
bad thing, well below the recommended 2.35:1.

What confuses people is that it's a matter of how the front/rear
sprocket combination feeds into the Rohloff's many hidden internal
gears, not a matter of the simple front/rear sprocket of an exposed
derailleur.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

Andre Jute wrote:
A concurrent thread on a big gear range made me wonder what width one
could achieve in hub gears by ignoring the recommended chainring/
sprocket ratio, which for Rohloff appears to be a fraction under 2.5
and for the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub is specifically given as from
2.0 to 2.1. I have no idea how long the hubs would survive under
abusive handling as in some of the examples below. All numbers in gear
inches.

With a 37-622 tyre and 46-16 gears, the Rohloff Speed Hub would give a
range from a notch or two below many mountain bikes to pretty well
beyond what most people could manage on the flat. Fourteen gears in
gear inches developed:

22
25
28
32
37
42
47
54
61
70
79
90
102
116

Just for comparison, here are the gear inches for the 14 gears of the
Rohloff with a more reasonable, and possibly permitted (I've seen it
several times), 42-16 setup. Still a very respectable spread, and
probably more pleasurable to use:

20
23
26
29
33
38
43
49
56
64
72
82
93
106

Adding the Schlumpf Speed Drive to a Rohloff Speed Hub seems
unnecessary: it will add only four useful gears at most, the rest
being duplicated.

Why not consider the Schlumpf High Speed Drive [1] that offers a 2.5:1
step-up, as compared to the 1.65:1 step-up of the Speed Drive?

Okay, let's look at the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub.

With a 37-622 tyre and the same 46-16 gears as inour first example,
but in this case even more abusive, the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub
combined with the Schlumpf Mountain Drive would give an even wider
useful spread, 14 unique gears out of 16 covering from a Himalayan low
gear to 127in to pose with in cafe society. (This covers the entirely
unreasonable 18 to 123in someone asked for in a concurrent thread, and
a bit more.)

Unreasonable for an upright bicycle, yes.

However, for a recumbent bicycle, that wide gearing range is not at all
unreasonable, but nearer to a necessity. The proper climbing technique
on a recumbent bicycle is unlike that for an upright bicycle, where the
preferred climbing technique of many is to stand and pedal at a
relatively low cadence, while pulling on the handlebars to increase
one's "effective" weight.

Conversely, the proper climbing technique on a recumbent is to use a
very high cadence (e.g. 120 RPM) and to pull back [2] as much as
possible. Trying to use the upright climbing technique will result in
excess lactic acid buildup with the rider then needing to stop or slow
severely to recover.

The (performance oriented) recumbent will also descend faster (where
tight corners or rough surfaces do not limit speed too severely) than
the upright. In particular, on a frontally or fully faired recumbent,
the rider can pedal without increasing drag, so a very high gear can be
used while going downhill.

I have a couple of lowracer bicycles with gear inch range of 19-120
(achieved with a step-up jack-shaft) and a "bodysock" faired long wheel
base recumbent with a range of 15-125 gear inches (achieved with a
triple crank and 3x7 hub). I have found both the lowest and highest gear
ratios on these bicycles useful.

Gear Direct SMD
1 42 17
2 51 20
3 59 24
4 67 27
5 79 32
6 97 39
7 112 45
8 127 51

I was speaking to a guy in the parts department at Volvo in Gothenburg
a few years ago, and when he heard I planted a Chevy mouse motor in
one of their estates and was now supercharging it and looking to use a
few gennie Volvo parts, he said thickly, "Doncha tell Warranty. Inna
flash Warranty turn your ash to grash." (On a tip from this colourful
fellow I ordered the parts I wanted a lot cheaper from Rolls-Royce
than from Volvo; they bought them the same place but the Volvo markup
was higher...) I imagine Shimano will turn one's warranty, and one's
ass, to grass in a flash if they hear about a 46-16 FR tooth ratio on
one of their Nexus hubs, when they went to the trouble of printing the
ratio warning on the cover of the spec sheet.

So let's try 38-18, which at 2.11 recurring is arguably within the
permitted ratio, and can be built with Shimano's goodlooking and
reasonably priced own-brand parts intended for the hub gear bikes.
With the Schlumpf Mountain Drive, that gives 14 unique gears that
covers everything from loaded goatherding to pretty fast touring:

31 12
37 15
43 17
49 20
58 23
71 28
82 33
94 37

It does look like iconoclasm and scoffjawing the warranty is
unnecessary. With either the Rohloff or the Nexus/Schlumpf combination
you can get nicely spaced gear ratios over a very wide operating band.
The designers of those hubs and geared bottom bracket got it right.

In fact, riding daily in the low rolling hills of West Cork, I find
38-19 sets of teeth just right on the Nexus gear hub without the need
for the Schlumpf geared bottom bracket; it gives me the following gear
inch development for the 8 gears, perfect for day rides on my
particular countryside without ever having to push:

29
35
41
47
55
67
78
89

Would not a higher gear be useful when drafting trucks downhill? ;)

Sprockets with any number of teeth you can want are readily available,
so for another use, say loaded alpine touring, I would not hesitate to
change the sprocket to give a ratio that is not permitted. I think the
Nexus hub is a lot sturdier than Shimano lets on, and it is widely
known that the Rohloff hub is panzer.

Of course, one can obtain very low gearing when the Rohloff is used in a
small drive wheel, without violating Rohloff's restrictions. Lacing the
large flange Rohloff hub into an ISO 349-mm hub would be challenging, if
one were to use it on a bicycle such as the Tri-Sled Nitro [3].

[1] http://www.schlumpf.ch/hsd_engl.htm.
[2] Clipless pedals with good retention are mandatory.
[3] http://www.trisled.com.au/nitro.html.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

Seeing that Rohloff are quite happy for their hub to be used on a tandem
with the recommended 2.4:1 front/rear ratio, I had no scruple using a lower
ratio on my own bike when I took it to Switzerland for two months in 2004. I
used 38/16 with 38x622 tyres, which gave a bottom gear that I found pretty
useful for comfortably climbing grades up to about 25% with a loaded bike.
That ratio gave gears from a low of 18 up to about 95 inches.

If you look at the actual hub specs, it nominates a maximum torque of 250Nm
at the crank with the recommended 2.4:1 ratio. With 170mm cranks that's
about 150Kgf on the pedal.

Nick

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
A concurrent thread on a big gear range made me wonder what width one
could achieve in hub gears by ignoring the recommended chainring/
sprocket ratio, which for Rohloff appears to be a fraction under 2.5
and for the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub is specifically given as from
2.0 to 2.1. I have no idea how long the hubs would survive under
abusive handling as in some of the examples below. All numbers in gear
inches.

With a 37-622 tyre and 46-16 gears, the Rohloff Speed Hub would give a
range from a notch or two below many mountain bikes to pretty well
beyond what most people could manage on the flat. Fourteen gears in
gear inches developed:

22
25
28
32
37
42
47
54
61
70
79
90
102
116

Just for comparison, here are the gear inches for the 14 gears of the
Rohloff with a more reasonable, and possibly permitted (I've seen it
several times), 42-16 setup. Still a very respectable spread, and
probably more pleasurable to use:

20
23
26
29
33
38
43
49
56
64
72
82
93
106

Adding the Schlumpf Speed Drive to a Rohloff Speed Hub seems
unnecessary: it will add only four useful gears at most, the rest
being duplicated.

Okay, let's look at the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub.

With a 37-622 tyre and the same 46-16 gears as inour first example,
but in this case even more abusive, the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub
combined with the Schlumpf Mountain Drive would give an even wider
useful spread, 14 unique gears out of 16 covering from a Himalayan low
gear to 127in to pose with in cafe society. (This covers the entirely
unreasonable 18 to 123in someone asked for in a concurrent thread, and
a bit more.)

Gear Direct SMD
1 42 17
2 51 20
3 59 24
4 67 27
5 79 32
6 97 39
7 112 45
8 127 51

I was speaking to a guy in the parts department at Volvo in Gothenburg
a few years ago, and when he heard I planted a Chevy mouse motor in
one of their estates and was now supercharging it and looking to use a
few gennie Volvo parts, he said thickly, "Doncha tell Warranty. Inna
flash Warranty turn your ash to grash." (On a tip from this colourful
fellow I ordered the parts I wanted a lot cheaper from Rolls-Royce
than from Volvo; they bought them the same place but the Volvo markup
was higher...) I imagine Shimano will turn one's warranty, and one's
ass, to grass in a flash if they hear about a 46-16 FR tooth ratio on
one of their Nexus hubs, when they went to the trouble of printing the
ratio warning on the cover of the spec sheet.

So let's try 38-18, which at 2.11 recurring is arguably within the
permitted ratio, and can be built with Shimano's goodlooking and
reasonably priced own-brand parts intended for the hub gear bikes.
With the Schlumpf Mountain Drive, that gives 14 unique gears that
covers everything from loaded goatherding to pretty fast touring:

31 12
37 15
43 17
49 20
58 23
71 28
82 33
94 37

It does look like iconoclasm and scoffjawing the warranty is
unnecessary. With either the Rohloff or the Nexus/Schlumpf combination
you can get nicely spaced gear ratios over a very wide operating band.
The designers of those hubs and geared bottom bracket got it right.

In fact, riding daily in the low rolling hills of West Cork, I find
38-19 sets of teeth just right on the Nexus gear hub without the need
for the Schlumpf geared bottom bracket; it gives me the following gear
inch development for the 8 gears, perfect for day rides on my
particular countryside without ever having to push:

29
35
41
47
55
67
78
89

Sprockets with any number of teeth you can want are readily available,
so for another use, say loaded alpine touring, I would not hesitate to
change the sprocket to give a ratio that is not permitted. I think the
Nexus hub is a lot sturdier than Shimano lets on, and it is widely
known that the Rohloff hub is panzer.

Andre Jute
Libertarian: a conservative who talks up a good liberal line.

Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
[...]
I have a couple of lowracer bicycles with gear inch range of 19-120
(achieved with a step-up jack-shaft) and a "bodysock" faired long wheel
base recumbent with a range of 15-125 gear inches (achieved with a triple
crank and 3x7 hub). I have found both the lowest and highest gear ratios
on these bicycles useful.
[...]

Only Superman will find a gear inch above 100 at all useful on a recumbent,
and then only for going downhill faster than is safe. Who does Mr. Sherman
think he is kidding? The Great Ed Dolan knows better and HE cannot be fooled
by this kind of braggadocio. Well, at least he has got the low gear inch
correct.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:
A concurrent thread on a big gear range made me wonder what width one
could achieve in hub gears by ignoring the recommended chainring/
sprocket ratio, which for Rohloff appears to be a fraction under 2.5
and for the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub is specifically given as from
2.0 to 2.1. I have no idea how long the hubs would survive under
abusive handling as in some of the examples below. All numbers in gear
inches.

With a 37-622 tyre and 46-16 gears, the Rohloff Speed Hub would give a
range from a notch or two below many mountain bikes to pretty well
beyond what most people could manage on the flat. Fourteen gears in
gear inches developed:

22
25
28
32
37
42
47
54
61
70
79
90
102
116

Just for comparison, here are the gear inches for the 14 gears of the
Rohloff with a more reasonable, and possibly permitted (I've seen it
several times), 42-16 setup. Still a very respectable spread, and
probably more pleasurable to use:

20
23
26
29
33
38
43
49
56
64
72
82
93
106

Adding the Schlumpf Speed Drive to a Rohloff Speed Hub seems
unnecessary: it will add only four useful gears at most, the rest
being duplicated.

Why not consider the Schlumpf High Speed Drive [1] that offers a 2.5:1
step-up, as compared to the 1.65:1 step-up of the Speed Drive?

Okay, let's look at the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub.

With a 37-622 tyre and the same 46-16 gears as inour first example,
but in this case even more abusive, the Shimano Nexus 8-speed hub
combined with the Schlumpf Mountain Drive would give an even wider
useful spread, 14 unique gears out of 16 covering from a Himalayan low
gear to 127in to pose with in cafe society. (This covers the entirely
unreasonable 18 to 123in someone asked for in a concurrent thread, and
a bit more.)

Unreasonable for an upright bicycle, yes.

However, for a recumbent bicycle, that wide gearing range is not at all
unreasonable, but nearer to a necessity. The proper climbing technique on
a recumbent bicycle is unlike that for an upright bicycle, where the
preferred climbing technique of many is to stand and pedal at a relatively
low cadence, while pulling on the handlebars to increase one's "effective"
weight.

Conversely, the proper climbing technique on a recumbent is to use a very
high cadence (e.g. 120 RPM) and to pull back [2] as much as possible.
Trying to use the upright climbing technique will result in excess lactic
acid buildup with the rider then needing to stop or slow severely to
recover.

The (performance oriented) recumbent will also descend faster (where tight
corners or rough surfaces do not limit speed too severely) than the
upright. In particular, on a frontally or fully faired recumbent, the
rider can pedal without increasing drag, so a very high gear can be used
while going downhill.

I have a couple of lowracer bicycles with gear inch range of 19-120
(achieved with a step-up jack-shaft) and a "bodysock" faired long wheel
base recumbent with a range of 15-125 gear inches (achieved with a triple
crank and 3x7 hub). I have found both the lowest and highest gear ratios
on these bicycles useful.

Gear Direct SMD
1 42 17
2 51 20
3 59 24
4 67 27
5 79 32
6 97 39
7 112 45
8 127 51

I was speaking to a guy in the parts department at Volvo in Gothenburg
a few years ago, and when he heard I planted a Chevy mouse motor in
one of their estates and was now supercharging it and looking to use a
few gennie Volvo parts, he said thickly, "Doncha tell Warranty. Inna
flash Warranty turn your ash to grash." (On a tip from this colourful
fellow I ordered the parts I wanted a lot cheaper from Rolls-Royce
than from Volvo; they bought them the same place but the Volvo markup
was higher...) I imagine Shimano will turn one's warranty, and one's
ass, to grass in a flash if they hear about a 46-16 FR tooth ratio on
one of their Nexus hubs, when they went to the trouble of printing the
ratio warning on the cover of the spec sheet.

So let's try 38-18, which at 2.11 recurring is arguably within the
permitted ratio, and can be built with Shimano's goodlooking and
reasonably priced own-brand parts intended for the hub gear bikes.
With the Schlumpf Mountain Drive, that gives 14 unique gears that
covers everything from loaded goatherding to pretty fast touring:

31 12
37 15
43 17
49 20
58 23
71 28
82 33
94 37

It does look like iconoclasm and scoffjawing the warranty is
unnecessary. With either the Rohloff or the Nexus/Schlumpf combination
you can get nicely spaced gear ratios over a very wide operating band.
The designers of those hubs and geared bottom bracket got it right.

In fact, riding daily in the low rolling hills of West Cork, I find
38-19 sets of teeth just right on the Nexus gear hub without the need
for the Schlumpf geared bottom bracket; it gives me the following gear
inch development for the 8 gears, perfect for day rides on my
particular countryside without ever having to push:

29
35
41
47
55
67
78
89

Would not a higher gear be useful when drafting trucks downhill? ;)

Sprockets with any number of teeth you can want are readily available,
so for another use, say loaded alpine touring, I would not hesitate to
change the sprocket to give a ratio that is not permitted. I think the
Nexus hub is a lot sturdier than Shimano lets on, and it is widely
known that the Rohloff hub is panzer.

Of course, one can obtain very low gearing when the Rohloff is used in a
small drive wheel, without violating Rohloff's restrictions. Lacing the
large flange Rohloff hub into an ISO 349-mm hub would be challenging, if
one were to use it on a bicycle such as the Tri-Sled Nitro [3].

[1] http://www.schlumpf.ch/hsd_engl.htm.
[2] Clipless pedals with good retention are mandatory.
[3] http://www.trisled.com.au/nitro.html.

I find that I cannot comment on the above due to insufficient information
posted by the two correspondents. If you wish to know what the Great Ed
Dolan thinks, you will have to provide much more detail, especially more
numbers if you please. My God, how do you expect anyone to determine
anything from the paucity of information posted here!

All this **** about hubs and gears has got my head reeling! I used to think
this kind of stuff was important, but now I know better. Only nerds, jerks
and dorks care about this ****, let alone post messages to newsgroups about
it. But that is RBT for you - an asylum of nerds, jerks and dorks. It is the
true home of Tom Sherman. He should stay there and not bother us sane and
sensible types here on ARBR.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Why not consider the Schlumpf High Speed Drive [1] that offers a 2.5:1
step-up, as compared to the 1.65:1 step-up of the Speed Drive?

You do need a modified version if you want to keep within warranty - the
high speed drive comes with quite a small chainwheel. But yes, it would give
an amusingly insane range of gears when combined with a rohloff :-)

cheers,
clive

Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

On Jan 31, 1:18*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:

However, for a recumbent bicycle, that wide gearing range is not at all
unreasonable, but nearer to a necessity.

Bents and climbing don't mix well, in other words.

The proper climbing technique
on a recumbent bicycle is unlike that for an upright bicycle, where the
preferred climbing technique of many is to stand and pedal at a
relatively low cadence, while pulling on the handlebars to increase
one's "effective" weight.

Nice try. Upright riders can sit or stand and easily switch back and
forth. Bent riders can't.

The (performance oriented) recumbent will also descend faster (snip)

"Also"? Where did "also" come from? 120rpm in a 15" gear? Isn't that
right about stall speed for you guys?

(where
tight corners or rough surfaces do not limit speed too severely) than
the upright.

I agree that in the real world, on real streets with potholes and
tight corners, uprights are safer to ride than bents (just sending a
little rhetoric back at you, there).

In particular, on a frontally or fully faired recumbent,
the rider can pedal without increasing drag, so a very high gear can be
used while going downhill.

The proselytizing gets old, Tom.

We all know about wind resistance and bents and all that stuff. OK?
Oh, and "comfort". Well, I've tried a bent, I didn't feel very
comfortable g. Sure enough, the next guy had to go around the
parking lot a little faster to show me up, and he crashed. Whoops!
Truth be told, that was on a short-wheelbase prototype (lots of
prototypes in the bent world, from my brief lookings, btw).

We had a semi-regular bent rider on the Wednesday night "Tour of the
Inner Loop" in Houston (Planetary Bicycles, 6:00) and two or three
others who were occasionals. No problems here, but no thanks, either.
Not for riding on real roads, anyhow.

BTW, from what I've seen, the problem with mixing bents and bicycles
isn't wheelbase or profile (or slowing down on hills), it wobbling.
Does everyone wobble, or just the three or four guys I've ridden with?

(Don't get me wrong dept.): If you haven't "heard" me say before,
"there's a bent in everyone's future"-- kind of a parallel to your
"failure" thing in your sig. But, at 58-1/2 (three quarters,
actually), with a bad back, arthritis in the hands, and a difficulty
with one of the saddle contact areas (doing much better, thanks), I'm
not there yet.

Few bents are seen here in Austin, compared to bicycles. As in, you go
to a larger group ride, non-racer groups such as the esteemed ACA
weekend rides, you don't see a bent very often at all.

Well... Houston is flat, Austin is hilly. Bingo! --D-y

Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 31, 1:18 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:

[Quotation marks are messed up, so I will supply my own.]

However, for a recumbent bicycle, that wide gearing range is not at all
unreasonable, but nearer to a necessity.

Bents and climbing don't mix well, in other words.

Dust has really get that part right!

The proper climbing technique
on a recumbent bicycle is unlike that for an upright bicycle, where the
preferred climbing technique of many is to stand and pedal at a
relatively low cadence, while pulling on the handlebars to increase
one's "effective" weight.

Nice try. Upright riders can sit or stand and easily switch back and
forth. Bent riders can't.

Bent riders are like potted plants.

The (performance oriented) recumbent will also descend faster (snip)

"Also"? Where did "also" come from? 120rpm in a 15" gear? Isn't that
right about stall speed for you guys?

Many bent riders go downhill too fast and suffer the consequences.

(where
tight corners or rough surfaces do not limit speed too severely) than
the upright.

I agree that in the real world, on real streets with potholes and
tight corners, uprights are safer to ride than bents (just sending a
little rhetoric back at you, there).

Bent riders need to slow down when the road gets rough.

In particular, on a frontally or fully faired recumbent,
the rider can pedal without increasing drag, so a very high gear can be
used while going downhill.

The proselytizing gets old, Tom.

We all know about wind resistance and bents and all that stuff. OK?
Oh, and "comfort". Well, I've tried a bent, I didn't feel very
comfortable g. Sure enough, the next guy had to go around the
parking lot a little faster to show me up, and he crashed. Whoops!
Truth be told, that was on a short-wheelbase prototype (lots of
prototypes in the bent world, from my brief lookings, btw).

Fully faired recumbents are a pain in the neck. Mostly they don't work
very well.

We had a semi-regular bent rider on the Wednesday night "Tour of the
Inner Loop" in Houston (Planetary Bicycles, 6:00) and two or three
others who were occasionals. No problems here, but no thanks, either.
Not for riding on real roads, anyhow.

"Bent riders need to slow down when the road gets rough." - Ed Dolan

BTW, from what I've seen, the problem with mixing bents and bicycles
isn't wheelbase or profile (or slowing down on hills), it wobbling.
Does everyone wobble, or just the three or four guys I've ridden with?

The slower you go on any bike, the more you wobble.

(Don't get me wrong dept.): If you haven't "heard" me say before,
"there's a bent in everyone's future"-- kind of a parallel to your
"failure" thing in your sig. But, at 58-1/2 (three quarters,
actually), with a bad back, arthritis in the hands, and a difficulty
with one of the saddle contact areas (doing much better, thanks), I'm
not there yet.

Hang in there Dust - you will end up on a recumbent yet with all your
ailments.

Few bents are seen here in Austin, compared to bicycles. As in, you go
to a larger group ride, non-racer groups such as the esteemed ACA
weekend rides, you don't see a bent very often at all.

The largest group ride that I know of is RAGBRAI (Iowa). There are always
lots of recumbents on that ride.

Well... Houston is flat, Austin is hilly. Bingo! --D-y

"Bents and climbing don't mix well, in other words." - Dust

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota