Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say

[Eric Norris]

For those who don't have a copy of "The Dancing Chain" laying around
the house, here's a summary of what Frank Berto said about internally
geared hubs (IGHs), which is itself a summary of extensive bench
testing done in 1998:

--Standard derailleur systems achieve 98-99 percent efficiency when
the chain is running straight, and 96-97 when in cross-chain mode
(such as small cog/small chainring)

--Internally geared hubs ranged between 80 and 90 percent efficiency,
achieving higher efficiency in lower gears. One IGH tested in direct-
drive mode was 95 percent efficient.

Berto compared a typical rider (generating 1/8 horsepower) riding up a
4 percent grade in a low (31-inch) gear.

--With a standard derailleur bike operating at 96 percent efficiency,
the typical rider could climb at 5.2 mph at a cadence of 60 rpm

--With an IGH operating at 90 percent, the same rider would be 6
percent less efficient, dropping his/her speed to 5.1 mph

Those numbers don't sound too bad, at least for shorter riders. A 4-
hour ride on a standard geared bike would take about 4 hours and 15
minutes (or less, since the efficiency of the IGH wouldn't matter at
all on downhills).

However, applied to an event like PBP, an 84-hour time would become 89
hours if the bike became 6 percent less efficient (or, assuming that
half of PBP is more or less downhill, 84 hours would become 87 1/2).

I'll continue to test this in the field and see how my Quickbeam's 8-
speed Sturmey Archer performs.

P.S. No, the vaunted 14-speed Rohloff hub was not part of the '98
test. It's hard to see how it could be too much more efficient than
other IGHs, but it could be somewhat closer to a standard setup.

P.P.S. If you haven't read The Dancing Chain, you really should. It's
a fascinating look back at the early days of cycling, and it proves
once again that everything "new" in bicycling today was in fact
invented 100 years ago. Really.

--Eric
www.wheelsnorth.org
www.campyonly.com

[Ron Farnsworth]

Bad math. If 96% efficient = 5.2 mph, then 90% efficient would be 4.875 mph, not 5.1 mph. And that's with worst case efficiency numbers for the chain setup and best case efficiency numbers for the IGH. Based on this, the other calculations are off too. Correct me if I'm wrong.  --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Eric Norris <campyo...@me.com> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.

[Eric Norris]

Blame Berto.  They're his numbers.

--Eric

www.wheelsnorth.org

www.campyonly.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Mechanical inefficiency of the drivetrain is not the only thing that
makes a cyclist slower. Let's say, for example, that 90% of the total
inefficiency comes from tire rolling resistance and aerodynamics, and
10% comes from the mechanical friction and slop in the drivetrain.
Then the total effect of a 6% drop in mechanical efficiency would
translate to something like 10% of a 6% drop in speed (i.e. 0.6%).
Approximately. My numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not
based on actual measurements of inefficiency.

On Nov 19, 8:17 am, Ron Farnsworth <r2far...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bad math.
> If 96% efficient = 5.2 mph, then 90% efficient would be 4.875 mph, not 5.1 mph. And that's with worst case efficiency numbers for the chain setup and best case efficiency numbers for the IGH. Based on this, the other calculations are off too.
> Correct me if I'm wrong. 
>

> --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Eric Norris <campyonly...@me.com> wrote:

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Eric Norris]

Jim:

You're right, of course. If you look at Berto's numbers, a drop from 5.2 to 5.1mph is a 2% decrease, not 6%. Obviously, other factors are involved in how fast you go, not just the efficiency of the drivetrain.

Applied to my PBP example, going 2% slower would add about 1.7 hours to an 84-hour PBP (again, probably less time would be added when the downhill sections are factored in).

--Eric
campyo...@me.com
www.campyonly.com
www.wheelsnorth.org

--Eric
campyo...@me.com
www.campyonly.com
www.wheelsnorth.org

[MichaelH]

I'll bet these estimates assume a clean, oiled chain and cog set, as
well as pulleys and rings. I wonder what the calculation would be
with a couple of pounds of winter slush over the drive system! Then
add studded tires to the equation.

Michael
Westford, Vt
I can resist anything except temptation.

On Nov 19, 11:23 am, Eric Norris <campyonly...@me.com> wrote:
> Jim:
>
> You're right, of course.  If you look at Berto's numbers, a drop from 5.2 to 5.1mph is a 2% decrease, not 6%.  Obviously, other factors are involved in how fast you go, not just the efficiency of the drivetrain.
>
> Applied to my PBP example, going 2% slower would add about 1.7 hours to an 84-hour PBP (again, probably less time would be added when the downhill sections are factored in).
>
> --Eric

> campyonly...@me.comwww.campyonly.comwww.wheelsnorth.org

> campyonly...@me.comwww.campyonly.comwww.wheelsnorth.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Steve Palincsar]

On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 07:26 -0800, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
> Mechanical inefficiency of the drivetrain is not the only thing that
> makes a cyclist slower. Let's say, for example, that 90% of the total
> inefficiency comes from tire rolling resistance and aerodynamics, and
> 10% comes from the mechanical friction and slop in the drivetrain.
> Then the total effect of a 6% drop in mechanical efficiency would
> translate to something like 10% of a 6% drop in speed (i.e. 0.6%).
> Approximately. My numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not
> based on actual measurements of inefficiency.

But I think the big issue with IG hubs isn't the actual inefficiency --
it's well known that 11T and 12T sprockets are extremely inefficient,
yet nobody complains about their inefficiency vs larger ones -- it's the
feel, that slushy, squishy feeling that you're putting power in but it
isn't coming out. A derailleur drive train in any gear feels "solid"
under your pedal as you apply power, but 1st gear in a Sturmey AW (and
that is, after all, what most people have in their experience bank when
you speak of internal geared hubs) doesn't.

Also the gear change in a derailleur system, even non-indexed, once it
stops clacking, feels "positive" compared to the gear change on an AW,
which somehow does not.

People call that "inefficiency," even though nobody's measuring power in
vs power out. It's that "friction box" feeling.

[Dustin Sharp]

The "feel" issue is definitely a big issue with the Rohloff in certain
gears. You can feel static in the pedals as it grinds in gear 7, for
example. Hear it too. Makes you understand why some riders used to call them
pepper grinders and gives you the sensation of pedaling through water.

In terms of real world time, I'm as fast in my commutes on my
Rohloff-equipped bike as with my derailleur-equipped one. If it weren't for
my computer, I might not believe it.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 09:48 -0800, Dustin Sharp wrote:
> The "feel" issue is definitely a big issue with the Rohloff in certain
> gears. You can feel static in the pedals as it grinds in gear 7, for
> example. Hear it too. Makes you understand why some riders used to call them
> pepper grinders and gives you the sensation of pedaling through water.
>
> In terms of real world time, I'm as fast in my commutes on my
> Rohloff-equipped bike as with my derailleur-equipped one. If it weren't for
> my computer, I might not believe it.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

[Eric Norris]

So far, I get the feeling that the internal gears on my Sturmey Archer 8S don't like to be put under a load. It feels fine--just like a regular bike--when I'm spinning on the flats. Going uphill, it feels harder to pedal than it did with a fixed gear in the same ratio. In my experience, the IGH promotes spinning, not mashing.

As Dustin noted, my computer tells me I'm riding just as fast with the IGH as I would be on a derailleur or fixed gear, but it sure *feels* different.

--Eric
campyo...@me.com
www.campyonly.com
www.wheelsnorth.org

[Mark]

Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree
it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I
am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To
me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy
about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has
forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun riding
a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun!

No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons
and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur!

Surf

[Eric Norris]

I'm totally into riding slower (ask my friends), but I also do some "extreme" rides where it could make a real difference to be even a little less efficient. If I'm not trying to stay ahead of control point closing times, let's just noodle along!

--Eric
campyo...@me.com
www.campyonly.com
www.wheelsnorth.org

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
>
>

--Eric
campyo...@me.com
www.campyonly.com
www.wheelsnorth.org

[CycloFiend]

on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbi...@gmail.com wrote:

> Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree
> it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I
> am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To
> me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy
> about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has
> forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun riding
> a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun!
>
> No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons
> and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur!

I think the bicycle is the most wonderfully efficient tool we've managed to
come up with, and don't find the ideas of effiency to be at odds with GP or
Rivendell in general.

My Go/No-Go moment really came with rise of full suspension (well, actually
_front_ suspension, as I kept asking myself why the heck I had to overhaul
my old Judy fork every 3-4 weeks, and why it made sense to own three
cartridges, so the other two could be rotated back to Rock Shox when they
failed...). Everything seemed to be complexifying and corrupting a simple
system until the tinkering and finicky-ness of the equipment almost became
an end to itself.

When the idea of Stable Plaform Valve systems in bicycle shock absorbers
came out, it was an interesting idea, but it allowed designers to start
re-using designs that had horrific effects because it allowed them to shift
the fixing of the drawbacks back onto the shock. You could put the rear
pivot point outside of the chainrings again, because you could correct for
the pedaling induced suspension with the valving.

It reminded me of the "stealth" airplanes, which, if I read it right, are
actually unstable in flight and need multiple computers to correct and
recorrect to keep it flying.

All of which is a darn long-winded way of saying that for some, the
efficiency is exactly at the heart of GP's ideas, and for most, a simple
fixed hub, coastable hub or externally shifted multi-gear setup embodies
that.

Now that I've got the Quickbeam back up and running, one of the things I
love about it is the simple efficiency.

Certainly, if I had the stray funds this year, I'd be playing around with
the S-A 3 speed fixed hub on the Quickbeam. (Also, I do snag my wife's
Nexus-8 hubbed bike now and again, which is perfect for mail and farmer's
market runs.)

I guess my feeling is that all of the Riv designs invite adaptation and
allow us to add complexity where we want it.

- Jim

--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net

Current Classics Bicycle Photo Gallery - http://www.cyclofiend.com/cc
Cross Bike Photo Gallery - http://www.cyclofiend.com/cx
Single Speed Garage Photo Gallery - http://www.cyclofiend.com/ssg
Working Bikes & Practical Hardware - http://www.cyclofiend.com/working
Work Shops of the iBob's - http://www.cyclofiend.com/shop

Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines

"That which is overdesigned, too highly specific, anticipates outcome; the
anticipation of outcome guarantees, if not failure, the absence of grace."

William Gibson - "All Tomorrow's Parties"

[Ray Shine]

--- On Thu, 11/19/09, Mark <mclbi...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Mark <mclbi...@gmail.com> Subject: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say To: "RBW Owners Bunch" <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 5:39 AM Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun riding a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun! No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur! Surf

Ah!  Well put, Mark (Surf?)

[Angus]

Mr. Berto's math is quite close.

Power varies with the cube of the speed (speed x speed x speed).

5.2 cubed / 5.1 cubed = 1.060 or about 6% difference in power
required.

Angus

On Nov 19, 8:17 am, Ron Farnsworth <r2far...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bad math.
> If 96% efficient = 5.2 mph, then 90% efficient would be 4.875 mph, not 5.1 mph. And that's with worst case efficiency numbers for the chain setup and best case efficiency numbers for the IGH. Based on this, the other calculations are off too.
> Correct me if I'm wrong. 
>

> --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Eric Norris <campyonly...@me.com> wrote:
>
> From: Eric Norris <campyonly...@me.com>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Ron Farnsworth]

The power output says 1/8 hp and I assume that is a fixed value, and I discounted aerodynamics and rolling resistance as well for such a small change in speed. Beyond that, isn't it a simple linear relationship between drivetrain efficiency and speed?   After re-reading I think there may have been a simple clerical error in the writing, as the numbers do proportion out to 5.1 mph if one uses the 95% (direct drive mode efficiency of the IGH) instead of the 90% number used in the example. That accounts for what I originally thought may have been a math mistake.    --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Angus <angus...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Tim McNamara]

On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 07:26 -0800, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
>> Mechanical inefficiency of the drivetrain is not the only thing that
>> makes a cyclist slower. Let's say, for example, that 90% of the total
>> inefficiency comes from tire rolling resistance and aerodynamics, and
>> 10% comes from the mechanical friction and slop in the drivetrain.
>> Then the total effect of a 6% drop in mechanical efficiency would
>> translate to something like 10% of a 6% drop in speed (i.e. 0.6%).
>> Approximately. My numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not
>> based on actual measurements of inefficiency.
>
>
> But I think the big issue with IG hubs isn't the actual
> inefficiency --
> it's well known that 11T and 12T sprockets are extremely inefficient,
> yet nobody complains about their inefficiency vs larger ones --
> it's the
> feel, that slushy, squishy feeling that you're putting power in but it
> isn't coming out. A derailleur drive train in any gear feels "solid"
> under your pedal as you apply power, but 1st gear in a Sturmey AW (and
> that is, after all, what most people have in their experience bank
> when
> you speak of internal geared hubs) doesn't.

That's not my experience with AWs and Sachs 3 speed hubs. YMMV.

> Also the gear change in a derailleur system, even non-indexed, once it
> stops clacking, feels "positive" compared to the gear change on an AW,
> which somehow does not.
>
> People call that "inefficiency," even though nobody's measuring
> power in
> vs power out. It's that "friction box" feeling.

Hmm. Maybe my hubs have been in fortunately good shape. My current
IGH, a Sram T3, seems about as efficient as my derailleur setups by
feel. The main problem is the overly large jumps between gears.

[Tim McNamara]

On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote:

> on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree
>> it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I
>> am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To
>> me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy
>> about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has
>> forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun
>> riding
>> a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun!
>>
>> No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons
>> and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur!
>
> I think the bicycle is the most wonderfully efficient tool we've
> managed to
> come up with, and don't find the ideas of effiency to be at odds
> with GP or
> Rivendell in general.

Well, we're begging the question "efficiency for what?" For a Tour
de France TT? Or for a pleasant afternoon's ride on a sunny day?

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:

On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote:

> on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree
>> it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I
>> am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency?

Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of "what you want" and "what you get" makes for fun!

Patrick "efficient cyclist and epistemologist" Moore

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumesp...@gmail.com
(505) 227-0523

[JoelMatthews]

In snowy salty conditions having no derailer to jam up with gunk while
riding and less to clean (in fact there are German companies making
swell plastic chain devices that snap over IGH drivetrains) hen you
come home from an enjoyable ride enhances the fun.

Depending on what your riding circumstances are, an IGH can be a good
choice.

On Nov 19, 11:27 pm, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote:
>

> > > on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree
> > >> it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I
> > >> am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency?
>
> Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one
> with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly
> lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken,
> derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the
> extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient
> bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since
> it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And
> the coincidence of "what you want" and "what you get" makes for fun!
>
> Patrick "efficient cyclist and epistemologist" Moore
>
> --
> Patrick Moore
> Albuquerque, NM
> For professional resumes, contact

> Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com
> (505) 227-0523

[Steve Palincsar]

On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 22:27 -0700, PATRICK MOORE wrote:
>

> Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly?
> --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight
> bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left
> pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme,
> of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal,
> of course an efficient bike is more fun,

But your negative example doesn't demonstrate "inefficiency", it
demonstrates poor maintenance and poor adjustment. I don't think anyone
would dispute that such a badly maintained bike would be unpleasant.

But imagine a well maintained, well fitting bike with a demonstrably
less efficient drivetrain that utilizes extremely small sprockets like
the Capreo cassette -- say, for example, a high end Moulton. Science
clearly shows, those 9, 10 and 11 tooth sprockets are far less efficient
than 14 tooth. But people who ride those high end Moultons love them,
and find them highly enjoyable to ride -- in fact, Moulton owners are a
highly enthusiastic cult -- and never notice or remark on the proven
inefficiency of their drivetrains.

> even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does
> what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the
> coincidence of "what you want" and "what you get" makes for fun!

And by the way, those Moultons are very fast.

[PATRICK MOORE]

But your negative example doesn't demonstrate "inefficiency", it
demonstrates poor maintenance and poor adjustment. I don't think anyone
would dispute that such a badly maintained bike would be unpleasant.

It illustrates (demonstrate is the wrong word) extreme inefficiency, obviously.

The real question is not about efficiency so much as about trade-offs
between two incompatible sets of desirable qualities. I was trying to
make that point to the original poster. The inefficiency difference
between a ig hub and a derailleur drivetrain are IMO and IME too small
for the everyday casual rider to notice.

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
>
>
>

[JoelMatthews]

> The real question is not about efficiency so much as about trade-offs
> between two incompatible sets of desirable qualities. I was trying to
> make that point to the original poster. The inefficiency difference
> between a ig hub and a derailleur drivetrain are IMO and IME too small
> for the everyday casual rider to notice.

Or small enough that other benefits outweigh any efficiency
drawback.

Unfortunately for me any way, the lack of U.S. support for the Rohloff
weighed heavily against the benefits. I otherwise liked the Rohloff
hub.

On Nov 20, 9:07 am, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But your negative example doesn't demonstrate "inefficiency", it
> demonstrates poor maintenance and poor adjustment.  I don't think anyone
> would dispute that such a badly maintained bike would be unpleasant.
>
> It illustrates (demonstrate is the wrong word) extreme inefficiency, obviously.
>
> The real question is not about efficiency so much as about trade-offs
> between two incompatible sets of desirable qualities. I was trying to
> make that point to the original poster. The inefficiency difference
> between a ig hub and a derailleur drivetrain are IMO and IME too small
> for the everyday casual rider to notice.
>

> Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com
> (505) 227-0523- Hide quoted text -

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:17 AM, JoelMatthews <joelma...@mac.com> wrote:

> The real question is not about efficiency so much as about trade-offs
> between two incompatible sets of desirable qualities. I was trying to
> make that point to the original poster. The inefficiency difference
> between a ig hub and a derailleur drivetrain are IMO and IME too small
> for the everyday casual rider to notice.

Or small enough that other benefits outweigh any efficiency
drawback.

Exactly.

If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!!!!!) bike, I will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain.

--- I'm just waiting for an IG hub with a QR.

Patrick "is he really serious?" Moore

Of which speaking: those big, asymmetrical wingnuts that the old, hardmen, Brit club riders used to use before Tullio's things got hold of them: I suppose they were tight enough to keep the wheel from slipping?

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact

Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumesp...@gmail.com
(505) 227-0523

[It Depends]

Berto's later work suggests much narrower gaps between derailer and
IGH systems. See http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf
(noting especially conclusion 2: "Hub gears are generally about 2%
lower in efficiency than derailleur-type gears. But there are
exceptions.").

[PATRICK MOORE]

Very interesting: apparently, at least on some hubs, direct drive is *more* efficient than any gear on a deraileur drivetrain.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Rohloff has a qr option.

On Nov 20, 9:29 am, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com(505) 227-0523

[JoelMatthews]

> If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low
> enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!!!!!) bike, I
> will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain.

I am having a frame made, which, as the Quickbeam, can accommodate
single speed set up and an IG hub (actually mine will be somewhat more
versatile as it will have an EBB). I am going to try the Alfine.
Assuming the builder gets it to me soon (his flickr page shows the
frame is done, but not painted yet) this is going to see some heavy
winter duty. I will report back in a few months with my Alfine
impressions.

On Nov 20, 9:29 am, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com
> (505) 227-0523

[PATRICK MOORE]

Report back too on the EBB; I've thought of this solution to flip-flop hubs and disk brakes.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact

Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumesp...@gmail.com
(505) 227-0523

[Patrick in VT]

On Nov 20, 10:29 am, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low
> enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!!!!!) bike, I
> will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain.

well, that's the thing. if you like to ride hard, you may not dig the
ig.

i've used an IG hub (nexus 8 redband) for some longer brevets and
harder efforts and it just doesn't jive with my riding style for that
kind of riding.

I like to get out of the saddle, accelerate hard, attack hills, etc. -
I ride hard. but never felt comfortable doing that on the IG and I
definitely noticed a difference performance, esp. over long
distances. it's almost like it forced me to ride casually.

no question, I'd rather ride fixed gear on a longer brevet than use my
IG hub. and i'd rather use derailers than ride fixed gear if we're
talking 200k +.

[CycloFiend]

Good question. I think my point was that the feeling of efficiency is part
of my enjoyment, whether riding to the farmer's market of pushing my meagre
speed envelope.

The efficiency of a fixed gear resonates with me, as does a rigid mtb. I
know there are some limitations with those choices, but prefer the
limitations with those systems.

Recently I got back on the Quickbeam-in-fixed-mode after a bit of a layoff,
and reminded myself of that feeling. Rode around thinking "why do I mess
around with coastable, many-geared setups anyway?"

Of course, there were some climbs which reminded me of why... ;^)

- Jim

--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net

³Velvet pillows, safari parks, sunglasses: people have become woolly mice.
They still have bodies that can walk for five days and four nights through a
desert of snow, without food, but they accept praise for having taken a
one-hour bicycle ride.² - Tim Krabbe, "The Rider"

Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes

[Tim McNamara]

On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:52 AM, PATRICK MOORE wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM, It Depends <dmcc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Berto's later work suggests much narrower gaps between derailer and
> IGH systems. See http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf
> (noting especially conclusion 2: "Hub gears are generally about 2%
> lower in efficiency than derailleur-type gears. But there are
> exceptions.").

> Very interesting: apparently, at least on some hubs, direct drive
> is *more* efficient than any gear on a deraileur drivetrain.

Not really surprising. The derailleur sends the chain through two
jockey wheels which wrap the chain around a tight radius. Those of
us who ride fixed gears (no longer me) have probably noticed we can
swing a bit taller gear in most situations than we'd be comfortable
doing with a derailleur. My guess is that friction losses in wrapping
the chain around the jockey wheels and friction in the jockey
bearings is why.

[Eric Norris]

That conception was why te Tour de France was raced in fixed gears
into the 1930s. Racers felt that derailleurs were inefficient. "The
Dancing Chain" provides an excellen account of the difficulties faced
by multiple-speed systems in the early years. Tourists embraced
gearing long before racers did.

―Eric Norris
Sent via iPhone

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-
> bu...@googlegroups.com.

[CycloFiend]

Not sure I agree with your police work there... ;^)

As Eric noted, "The Dancing Chain" covers that.

The big gain in a fixed-gear system is that the momentum of the
bicycle/rider helps to drive the cranks through the deadspots in most
people's pedaling stroke.

I know I feel it when switching back to a coastable setup, as my feet will
tend to lag when climbing for the first hill or two. I'd reckon that if you
had a fixed-gear-derailleur-shifted setup (which I had once when a freewheel
pawl jammed once upon a time), there'd be little noticeable difference.

- J

--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net

Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes

Get your photos posted: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines

"Then I sat up, wiped the water out of my eyes, and looked at my bike, and
just like that I knew it was dead"

-- Robert McCammon, "Boy's Life"

[jim_OLP]

Who's making these chain covers?

[Mark]

Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly?
--one
with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings,
badly
lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken,
derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but
the
extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an
efficient

bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast,

since
it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient.
And
the coincidence of "what you want" and "what you get" makes for fun!

Patrick "efficient cyclist and epistemologist" Moore

Patrick, I couldnt agree with your more. But the folks who yak on this
blog don't generally speaking ride cheap bikes that really are not
much fun. Unless thats all you know, then its different, But once you
ride a Riv or any other nice bike, it changes your perspective, and I
suppose that everything can improve, even a very nice bike, because we
all tend to get dissatisfied with something, so what do we do! We go
to twaeking, which is part of the fun!
Yes, watching the birds and the beautiful scenery would be a drag if
your bike was not set up right. I just don't think that the IGH is so
poorly effecient, that it would be irritating and make a person say
while riding" Boy I wish this bike were more effecient darnit!"
I have never experienced a difference betwwen my IGH and a derailleur!
But I suppose there is if you ask Lance!

Surf

[RoadieRyan]

I find the most inefficient part of my setup is the guy doing the
pedaling.

With exception made to racing where such margins can be the difference
between comparable atheletes, so says Lance, I think worrying about
the IGH being 2 -5% less efficient is akin to a clydesdale like myself
insisting they must have a Durace gruppo because of the weight
savings.

My being 5% more efficient probably makes much more difference than
whether I ride IGH or Derailleur. On a "hypothetical" 250 lb
clydesdale 5% equals 12.5 lbs fewer that would be getting hauled
around or 5670 grams for you weight wenies. For context a Mavic
Aksium wheelset weights in at 1885 grams, and the super light Riv
Roadeo is 1814 g.

Just saying....

On Nov 20, 7:38 am, It Depends <dmccu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Berto's later work suggests much narrower gaps between derailer and

> IGH systems.  Seehttp://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf

[JoelMatthews]

> Who's making these chain covers?

Jim:

There was a discussion on same over in the Peter White Bike group.

http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle/browse_thread/thread/34d06e0d05abb4aa#

Consensus is the best were by the linked German company. The chain
rubs against the guard, yes. But it remains relatively free of winter
road gunk.

[jim_OLP]

That Hebie think is the most interesting gadget I've seen in a long
time! Not cheap, but if it really, really, really works, it could be
great. On the other hand many a "protective" cover turns out to be
merely a hard-to clean accumulator of whatever it was supposed to keep
out.

I ride during the winter, on the Neptunian streets of Minneapolis, and
chains are just eaten alive here.

On Nov 23, 2:40 pm, JoelMatthews <joelmatth...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Who's making these chain covers?
>

> Jim:
>
> There was a discussion on same over in the Peter White Bike group.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle/browse_thread/thread/...

[Tim McNamara]

The reviews I have read of the Hebie are that it works very well
indeed. The downside is that it only fits a few specific gear
combinations.

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-
> bu...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch
> +unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/

> group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>

[JoelMatthews]

I am hopeful I will be able to get a Hebie that fits my new IGH.
Chicago certainly does not get the snow and cold as bad as
Minneapolis, but the city really goes nuts with the salt.

Crazy as it sounds, it is arguably better to bike in Alaska or
somewhere at higher elevation where lower temps keep the snow frozen.
The snow slush salt mix in Chicago is just miserable. El Nino winters
tend to bring less snow to Chicago. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

> > group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[Tim McNamara]

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:22 AM, JoelMatthews wrote:

> I am hopeful I will be able to get a Hebie that fits my new IGH.
> Chicago certainly does not get the snow and cold as bad as
> Minneapolis, but the city really goes nuts with the salt.

I grew up in Elmhurst and go back every Christmas to see my Mom.
It's damp and raw and feels colder at 40F than -10F in St. Paul.

We generally have cold dry winters (not in the past decade when we've
had like 8 of the warmest winters on record, but the winters have
been mostly still dry so still more tolerable than Chicago). The
snow stays good and frozen almost all winter until the awful early
spring, followed by 6-8 weeks of frequent rain until mid-July. Then
we get our annual 6 seeks of good weather, after which winter begins
again. OK, I exaggerate slightly. Winter doesn't begin until mid-
September. ;-)

> Crazy as it sounds, it is arguably better to bike in Alaska or
> somewhere at higher elevation where lower temps keep the snow frozen.
> The snow slush salt mix in Chicago is just miserable. El Nino winters
> tend to bring less snow to Chicago. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

I think that's right. Cold keeps the water from being liquid and is
*much* less sloppy that way.

[R Gonet]

Patrick Wrote:

"--- I'm just waiting for an IG hub with a QR.
Patrick "is he really serious?" Moore "

Your wait is over. The Rohloff is a QR IG hub.

Richard "I've got one," Gonet

[jim_OLP]

When people hear Minneapolis they think extreme cold, snow and ice.
And we do get those things but most of the time it's like Chicago -
endless, corrosive slush due to gross overuse of ice-melt chemicals.
If the Hebie case really worked, and lasted long enough to justify its
price, I'd probably get one. My winter bike has a 3-speed hub so it
may be possible to get a case that fits.

On Nov 24, 9:22 am, JoelMatthews <joelmatth...@mac.com> wrote:
> I am hopeful I will be able to get a Hebie that fits my new IGH.
> Chicago certainly does not get the snow and cold as bad as
> Minneapolis, but the city really goes nuts with the salt.
>
> Crazy as it sounds, it is arguably better to bike in Alaska or
> somewhere at higher elevation where lower temps keep the snow frozen.
> The snow slush salt mix in Chicago is just miserable.  El Nino winters
> tend to bring less snow to Chicago.  I am keeping my fingers crossed.
>
> On Nov 24, 8:53 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > The reviews I have read of the Hebie are that it works very well  
> > indeed.  The downside is that it only fits a few specific gear  
> > combinations.
>
> > On Nov 23, 2009, at 8:43 PM, jim_OLP wrote:
>
> > > That Hebie think is the most interesting gadget I've seen in a long
> > > time! Not cheap, but if it really, really, really works, it could be
> > > great. On the other hand many a "protective" cover turns out to be

> > > merely a hard-to cleanaccumulatorof whatever it was supposed to keep