|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
On Nov 14, 5:06*pm, Tom Ace wrote:
Rohloff has said they are developing a second version of the Speedhub, smaller and lighter, but still 14 gears (slightly larger range though). Details (including availability date) are not finalized, but word is that it probably won't be approved for tandem use. http://thelazyrandonneur.blogspot.co...ticle&sid=3100 Tom Ace Not holding my breath. I'm one of those infuriating fellows who would rather have the proven outgoing model that the latest and gratest. I'm happy for someone else to be the unpaid beta tester. Andre Jute Too little time left to bother with warranty repairs |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
On Nov 14, 9:52*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Clive George: Andy Blance is building bikes for people carrying large amounts of luggage up steep hills on bad roads. Really tiny gears become relevant then. But for normal road use, the 20" or lower bottom gear you're getting from even the conservatively geared rohloff is entirely fine. And if it isn't fine, due to lack of strength, gearing down past the warranted limits won't be a problem either. I'm about 100kg. On my old Rohloff, I flirted briefly with 32t on the front; but quickly went to 38. Dunno what the gear inches was with 32, but 38's lowest gear is plenty low for anything I climb. -- PeteCresswell How many miles on your Rohloff, Pete? -- AJ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
Per Andre Jute:
How many miles on your Rohloff, Pete? -- AJ Tough call bc I've got two and swap wheels depending on the riding. I'm gonna SWAG it and say 5,000 miles on the old one and 2,000 on the new one. -- PeteCresswell |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
On Nov 15, 2:08*am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Andre Jute: How many miles on your Rohloff, Pete? -- AJ Tough call bc I've got two and swap wheels depending on the riding. I'm gonna SWAG it and say 5,000 miles on the old one and 2,000 on the new one. Which immediately raises the sinister question: Why went wrong with the first one at only 5000 miles? I'm weeks into a planning a Rohloff bike; the entire project is built around Rohloff gears and balloon tyres. Don't tell me now I've made a mistake... Andre Jute Going into shock |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
André Jute wrote:
On Nov 15, 2:08 am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote: Per Andre Jute: How many miles on your Rohloff, Pete? -- AJ Tough call bc I've got two and swap wheels depending on the riding. I'm gonna SWAG it and say 5,000 miles on the old one and 2,000 on the new one. Which immediately raises the sinister question: Why went wrong with the first one at only 5000 miles? I'm weeks into a planning a Rohloff bike; the entire project is built around Rohloff gears and balloon tyres. Don't tell me now I've made a mistake... Andre Jute Going into shock I read the above as Pete currently having two (2) Rohloff Speedhubs and switching wheels depending on use. As an example, a rider could have one wheel set with fat knobbies for the softer stuff, and another wheel set with tires that have less tread for hard pack or slick rock. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
Tom Sherman wrote:
Mike Schwab wrote: [...] Going low for better climbing ability is fine, but how low of a top gear do you want? I mean at their minimum gearing, using the top gear and 100 RPM, what is your top speed? The problem of not enough overall range can easily be fixed by combining a Schlumpf bottom bracket with the Rohloff Speedhub. I have ridden a trike equipped thusly, and am aware of a couple of additional examples. Someone here in town found a mangled 'bent at the dump (where he works), about to go to the crusher. It had some salvageable bits, so he nabbed it and gave it to a buddy of mine. Turns out a couple of the salvageable bits were a Rohloff and a Schlumpf. When I breathlessly observed what an amazing treasure he had stumbled into, he offered to let _me_ have it. I replied that those parts were reserved for some sort of badass bike for _him_. I'll build it myself if I have to. I don't think the bike in question will require both Rohloff and Schlumpf, though, unless it's as some kind of artistic exercise. Roads only get so steep, and bikes only go so slow before they fall over. Chalo |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
Tom Ace wrote:
Rohloff has said they are developing a second version of the Speedhub, smaller and lighter, but still 14 gears (slightly larger range though). And even more expensive, no doubt. I think they might have done well to make their second model with a wider range and _more_ torque and power capacity, so that it could be used for electric assist bikes and other more-than-human powered applications. I'm not sure who would pay a premium for a lighter Rohloff hub and would also want wider gear range/larger steps between gears. In my observation, weight weenies and people who "need" close- ratio gearing are usually one and the same. Chalo |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
Tom Sherman wrote:
aka Mike Schwab wrote: [...] Going low for better climbing ability is fine, but how low of a top gear do you want? I mean at their minimum gearing, using the top gear and 100 RPM, what is your top speed? The problem of not enough overall range can easily be fixed by combining a Schlumpf bottom bracket with the Rohloff Speedhub. I have ridden a trike equipped thusly, and am aware of a couple of additional examples. While that is a solution, and one I use for the 'Tech, it must be the most expensive way on Dogs own Earth of getting a better gear range. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Loading the Rohloff Hub
Per Andre Jute:
Which immediately raises the sinister question: Why went wrong with the first one at only 5000 miles? I'm weeks into a planning a Rohloff bike; the entire project is built around Rohloff gears and balloon tyres. Don't tell me now I've made a mistake... Nothing. It's still going strong. I just have two Rohloff-equipped bikes. I tell people who ask about the hub: "It's heavy, it's noisy, it's less efficient, it costs an arm and a leg... and I just bought another one." Here's a review I wrote a long time ago: ================================================== ====== Pros: - Wide shifts: Probably a substitute for proper technique, but I can clean inclines that I couldn't before. Hammer in to it in, say, gear 8, then jump down to 4, then to 1 as needed. Also, on long climbs I like to alternate in and out of the saddle which, for me, is a 3 or 4 gear shift on each change. With the der I used to do it a lot less frequently that I really like and in the spirit of "Gee, I sure hope I don't miss this shift and take the saddle horn up my butt (again...)". Now I just snap those wide shifts without even thinking about it. Any time, any place.- I'm always in the right gear, since shifting is essentially trivial; seems like shifts take less than a fiftieth of a second. - No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small branches/grass wrapped around the cog/der. - It *seems* pretty-much bombproof. Time will tell, but I was spending more time than I cared to adjusting my der and bending a cog wheel while riding was a PITA. - Greatly-reduced frequency of missed shifts. "Reduced" and not "Zero" because there is a 'gotcha' between 7 and 8 dumps you into gear 14 if you forget and shift under load. It pops back into the intended gear as soon as the load comes off, but it's nothing you want to make a habit of doing. - Ability to shift down when stopped. I think I make more than my share of unplanned stops and I used to have to lift up the rear wheel and rotate the cranks to get down to a starting gear. Also, my technique sucks and probably won't get any better and it's nice to be able approach an object and slow way, way down before negotiating it without worrying about getting stuck in too high a gear to get over it. - I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds trivial, but I don't have any brain cells to spare. - Maybe not so much of a strength, but it should be mentioned somewhere that 14 speeds are enough. My original 44-32-22 der setup took me from 18.5 to 104. With the Rohloff on a 44 I get 19.9 to 104.9 in nice even, uniform 13.8% increments. That's only one less gear and, since I never used 104 it's a wash for me. With the 38 that I've since gone over to it's 17.2 - 90.6. I don't get spun out in 90.6 until about 25 mph - and there's no way I can hold that speed for very long anyhow. I left the old 32 in the middle position just because it weighs next to nothing and, on a big bump sometimes the chain drops (you're supposed to have a front-der-like dingus up there to keep it from doing that ....but I never go around to getting one) the 32 catches the chain. Also allows shifting down to a usually-ludicrous 14.something if things get really bad.... Cons: - It costs an arm and a leg. If my wife ever finds out I spent close to a grand on a rear wheel, she'll start to doubt my sanity. - This hub weighs a *lot*. It added 1.9 pounds to my already-heavy bike - same rim/tube/tire/spoke gauge. Anybody who says it only adds a pound must be using a really, *really* heavy cog/hub/der/shifter setup. I was using SRAM 9.0 with twist shifters. - The installation instructions could use a re-write. I'm no rocket scientist, and after studying them long enough I pulled it off - but it could have been a *lot* easier. - It's heavy. Are you ready for an 8-pound rear wheel? - The torque arm mounting that came with it was decidedly un-German (downright kludgey, I'd say...). Hose clamps! Also sometime during the first hundred miles the little clevis pin that held it all together disappeared. Wasn't a catastrophic failure because the normal riding pressure pushes everything together.... I probably installed the c-ring keeper wrong or something - but it seems like a weak point. Replaced it with a marine shackle set in LocTite. I have since discovered that there is a more elegant torque arm setup that Rohloff calls the "SpeedBone". Uses the disk brake mount and does not interfere with using a disk brake. - It's heavy. - It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with age, but it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles. - It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8. There's a web site somewhere (in German) that supposedly graphs a Rohloff against one of the Shimanos and claims no loss in most gears and 1-2% in the lower gears. I would disagree with that web site's figures. - Did I mention that it's heavy? ------------------------------------------------ Bottom Line: This is definitely not for everybody and the torque arm thing bugged me until I got the more elegant replacement. Having said that, I find that me and the Rohloff are a good match. I've quickly gotten so used to getting any gear I want any time I want and never having to stop and pull brush/branches out of my rear der that I can't imagine going back. It also appeals to the exhibitionist in me... You, on the other hand, might hate the thing. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: it's heavy. ================================================== ====== -- PeteCresswell |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Carbo loading | [email protected] | Racing | 26 | February 12th 08 08:52 PM |
Carbo loading | [email protected] | Techniques | 12 | February 11th 08 01:23 PM |
Carbo loading for the 'around the bay' | Bleve | Australia | 2 | October 10th 06 01:27 PM |
spoke loading analysis | jim beam | Techniques | 7 | September 5th 05 11:44 PM |
Carbo loading before a race? | jb | General | 84 | June 8th 04 02:02 PM |