Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 03:48:14 GMT, Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2015 4:22 AM, James wrote:
On 12/04/15 16:26, Ralph Barone wrote:


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).


You can get SA IGH that takes a cassette. You can then effectively do
away with the triple chainring and front derailleur.

That's a popular setup with Bike Friday folding bikes. See "What is the
SRAM 3x9 Dual Drive? " at https://www.bikefriday.com/bicycles/faqs/

(However, our Fridays have more conventional gears: front triple
cranks, 9 speed rear derailleurs.)

Or use a two or three chain rings and shift the front, which would be
a relatively easy modification.

A 50-16, for example, gives a 84.38 gear inches while a 49-16 ration
is 82.69 which is less then a shift from a 16 to 17 tooth cassette cog
which is from 84.38 to 79.41.


That's probably the easiest way to split the ratios on a Rohloff, but rear
derailleurs shift better than the front ones, so I was just exploring the
idea space.

Yes, that's true, but I thought that the rear derailer and chain
tensioning arm was what the internal-gear-heads bragged about not
having :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 11:48:16 PM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2015 4:22 AM, James wrote:
On 12/04/15 16:26, Ralph Barone wrote:


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).


You can get SA IGH that takes a cassette. You can then effectively do
away with the triple chainring and front derailleur.

That's a popular setup with Bike Friday folding bikes. See "What is the
SRAM 3x9 Dual Drive? " at https://www.bikefriday.com/bicycles/faqs/

(However, our Fridays have more conventional gears: front triple
cranks, 9 speed rear derailleurs.)

Or use a two or three chain rings and shift the front, which would be
a relatively easy modification.

A 50-16, for example, gives a 84.38 gear inches while a 49-16 ration
is 82.69 which is less then a shift from a 16 to 17 tooth cassette cog
which is from 84.38 to 79.41.


That's probably the easiest way to split the ratios on a Rohloff, but rear
derailleurs shift better than the front ones, so I was just exploring the
idea space.

enter the laser controlled front deray

On 4/12/2015 11:48 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2015 4:22 AM, James wrote:
On 12/04/15 16:26, Ralph Barone wrote:


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).


You can get SA IGH that takes a cassette. You can then effectively do
away with the triple chainring and front derailleur.

That's a popular setup with Bike Friday folding bikes. See "What is the
SRAM 3x9 Dual Drive? " at https://www.bikefriday.com/bicycles/faqs/

(However, our Fridays have more conventional gears: front triple
cranks, 9 speed rear derailleurs.)

Or use a two or three chain rings and shift the front, which would be
a relatively easy modification.

A 50-16, for example, gives a 84.38 gear inches while a 49-16 ration
is 82.69 which is less then a shift from a 16 to 17 tooth cassette cog
which is from 84.38 to 79.41.


That's probably the easiest way to split the ratios on a Rohloff, but rear
derailleurs shift better than the front ones, so I was just exploring the
idea space.

I've still got half-step gearing on three old bikes. That means the
freewheels are wide spaced, and the two big chainrings are very close in
tooth count - for example, 52 & 47 teeth.

When chainring tooth counts are that close, shifting between them is
very easy. It's nowhere near as difficult as, say, shifting 42 to 52.

Not that I'm advocating half-step gearing, BTW. Modern setups do shift
easier.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 3:57:08 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
SNIP

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.)

There is a weight penalty for a road bike -- between one and two pounds, and it's all in the back. But aside from that (which isn't meaningful for some people), I was wondering about the long-term cost savings. According to Lou, chain life for his Rohloff (no chaincase) is about the same as the chain life for his derailleur bike. Lou, correct me if I am wrong. So, you would have savings on cassettes but not necessarily chains. The next question is what is the cost/life span of a Rohloff cog.

According to that Oracle eBay, Rohloff cogs range between $32 and $54. A Rohloff cog is $40 at JensonUSA. http://www.jensonusa.com/!GU7rsFY-j1...eplacement-Cog

The Tiagra level cassette on my commuter bike cost $30. http://www.universalcycles.com/shopp...06&category=41
I don't know the lifespan of a Rohloff cog, but it is probably longer than my cassette -- plus you can flip them. Cassette life varies depending on how diligent you are changing chains. I'd be curious to see how the cassette and cog compare.

I agree that if you don't mind the weight and the absence of STI shifters, some oddities in terms of shifting (backing off to get a gear), 14 gears instead of 18/20/22, wider steps, adding oil and cost, increased friction (not making that up; it's been measured), then it's a great system. You can shift when stopped. I assume it doesn't miss gears and sticking cables don't have the same effect (e.g. ghost shifting, etc.) It lasts forever and hoses off easier.
It probably makes a superior MTB mud bike/heavy tourer.

-- Jay Beattie.

SAVE ?

https://www.google.com/#q=shimano+in...+hubs&tbm=shop

On 2015-04-13 14:43:08 +0000, Frank Krygowski said:

On 4/12/2015 11:48 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2015 4:22 AM, James wrote:
On 12/04/15 16:26, Ralph Barone wrote:


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).


You can get SA IGH that takes a cassette. You can then effectively do
away with the triple chainring and front derailleur.

That's a popular setup with Bike Friday folding bikes. See "What is the
SRAM 3x9 Dual Drive? " at https://www.bikefriday.com/bicycles/faqs/

(However, our Fridays have more conventional gears: front triple
cranks, 9 speed rear derailleurs.)

Or use a two or three chain rings and shift the front, which would be
a relatively easy modification.

A 50-16, for example, gives a 84.38 gear inches while a 49-16 ration
is 82.69 which is less then a shift from a 16 to 17 tooth cassette cog
which is from 84.38 to 79.41.


That's probably the easiest way to split the ratios on a Rohloff, but rear
derailleurs shift better than the front ones, so I was just exploring the
idea space.

I've still got half-step gearing on three old bikes. That means the
freewheels are wide spaced, and the two big chainrings are very close
in tooth count - for example, 52 & 47 teeth.

When chainring tooth counts are that close, shifting between them is
very easy. It's nowhere near as difficult as, say, shifting 42 to 52.

That depends on the type front derailleur.





--

Lou

On 2015-04-13 17:59:45 +0000, jbeattie said:

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 3:57:08 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
SNIP

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.)

There is a weight penalty for a road bike -- between one and two
pounds, and it's all in the back. But aside from that (which isn't
meaningful for some people), I was wondering about the long-term cost
savings. According to Lou, chain life for his Rohloff (no chaincase)
is about the same as the chain life for his derailleur bike. Lou,
correct me if I am wrong.

Ridden in the same conditions I experience no difference.

So, you would have savings on cassettes but not necessarily chains.
The next question is what is the cost/life span of a Rohloff cog.

According to that Oracle eBay, Rohloff cogs range between $32 and $54.
A Rohloff cog is $40 at JensonUSA.
http://www.jensonusa.com/!GU7rsFY-j1...eplacement-Cog


The Tiagra level cassette on my commuter bike cost $30.
http://www.universalcycles.com/shopp...06&category=41

I don't know the lifespan of a Rohloff cog, but it is probably longer
than my cassette -- plus you can flip them. Cassette life varies
depending on how diligent you are changing chains. I'd be curious to
see how the cassette and cog compare.
I agree that if you don't mind the weight and the absence of STI
shifters, some oddities in terms of shifting (backing off to get a
gear), 14 gears instead of 18/20/22, wider steps, adding oil and cost,
increased friction (not making that up; it's been measured), then it's
a great system. You can shift when stopped. I assume it doesn't miss
gears and sticking cables don't have the same effect (e.g. ghost
shifting, etc.) It lasts forever and hoses off easier.It probably makes
a superior MTB mud bike/heavy tourer.-- Jay Beattie.

You got it. No more no less. But if I was commuting in your horrible
weather I would ride a bike like this:

http://www.santosbikes.com/fietsen/lite-serie/race-lite

with dynohub of course.


--

Lou

On 14/04/15 04:43, Lou Holtman wrote:


You got it. No more no less. But if I was commuting in your horrible
weather I would ride a bike like this:

http://www.santosbikes.com/fietsen/lite-serie/race-lite

with dynohub of course.



That looks nice. What does one of those bikes cost?

--
JS

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 6:59:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 3:57:08 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
SNIP

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.)

There is a weight penalty for a road bike -- between one and two pounds, and it's all in the back. But aside from that (which isn't meaningful for some people), I was wondering about the long-term cost savings. According to Lou, chain life for his Rohloff (no chaincase) is about the same as the chain life for his derailleur bike. Lou, correct me if I am wrong. So, you would have savings on cassettes but not necessarily chains. The next question is what is the cost/life span of a Rohloff cog.

According to that Oracle eBay, Rohloff cogs range between $32 and $54. A Rohloff cog is $40 at JensonUSA. http://www.jensonusa.com/!GU7rsFY-j1...eplacement-Cog

The Tiagra level cassette on my commuter bike cost $30. http://www.universalcycles.com/shopp...06&category=41
I don't know the lifespan of a Rohloff cog, but it is probably longer than my cassette -- plus you can flip them. Cassette life varies depending on how diligent you are changing chains. I'd be curious to see how the cassette and cog compare.

I agree that if you don't mind the weight and the absence of STI shifters, some oddities in terms of shifting (backing off to get a gear), 14 gears instead of 18/20/22, wider steps, adding oil and cost, increased friction (not making that up; it's been measured), then it's a great system. You can shift when stopped. I assume it doesn't miss gears and sticking cables don't have the same effect (e.g. ghost shifting, etc.) It lasts forever and hoses off easier.
It probably makes a superior MTB mud bike/heavy tourer.

-- Jay Beattie.

In theory a Rohloff chain should last longer than a derailleur chain because the Rohloff has a straight run and the chain doesn't get twisted. In practice, measurement is bedevilled by the fact that most people use derailleur chains (rather than singlespeed chains) anyway because they're cheaper in the store because they're more common/moved in bigger unit numbers. For instance, instead of KMC Z8 chain, I use the X8, a derailleur chain.

How much better chain life, if any, you will get depends on how you treat your chain.

The Rohloff cog is widely thought to be superior to almost anything else you can buy; everyone gets extraordinary mileages on it, but it varies greatly according to what they got before. People who're hard on other gear is hard on Rohloff externals too. It would be interesting to know what mileage Chalo, north of 350 pounds, gets out of Rohloff cogs.

Personally, I never got much over a thousand miles from a cog before I switched to Rohloff, and my Rohloff cog is now at 8000km/5000m with no signs of wear, still on its first side. But I've concluded that the Nexus cogs and chainrings I used before are utter crap, because that dire record can't be all down to me.

***

A lot of the resistance to the Rohloff is from looking at the available facts carelessly. You say the Rohloff has more drag than a derailleur system, and so it does, when both are new and utterly clean. But the Rohloff hardly wears, and what wear there is probably reduces drag, and the Rohloff's drag cannot be increased by mud or other dirt. But we all know derailleurs wear, and their performance is affected by mud and other dirt. That is one of the reasons why Berto makes a point of mentioning which of the items under test were new. So the moment your derailleur system gets splashed with mud, it becomes less efficient than the Rohloff. The likelihood is that for most of its operating life, in most conditions, the Rohloff has less drag than a derailleur system. The only people who can actually use that temporary superiority of a derailleur system when it is clean are elite athletes with plenty of clean, new bikes standing by to jump onto when the first one gets dirty and draggy.

Chances are that you would be faster autocrossing on a Rohloff than any other transmission system.

Anyway, I'm not prosetylizing for Rolloff; I wanted to discuss using the Chainglider to run a chain for its entire life on the factory lube, an extention of an idea Sheldon gave me. It is just incidental that I ran the experiment on my Rohloff bike. It would work on any hub gearbox bike or single speed.

***

You say you don't know any Rohloff owners. Actually, one of the most interesting and significant things about RBT is that on a rather technical conference no fewer than five people are known to operate one or more Rohloff hubs: Sheldon, Chalo, Pete Cresswell, Lou, and me. Among my correspondents there's a well-known Rohloff exponent up the road from you in Eugene.

Andre Jute

On 13/04/2015 3:59 PM, James wrote:
On 14/04/15 04:43, Lou Holtman wrote:


You got it. No more no less. But if I was commuting in your horrible
weather I would ride a bike like this:

http://www.santosbikes.com/fietsen/lite-serie/race-lite

with dynohub of course.



That looks nice. What does one of those bikes cost?



http://www.vakantiefietser.nl/the-holiday-biker/santos/