On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 10:31:57 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 12:05:18 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > jbeattie <x> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:05:32 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > >> Joerg <x> wrote:
> > >>> On 2015-04-09 10:17 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > >>>> On 2015-04-09 17:03:26 +0000, Joerg said:
>
> > >>>>> Rohloff hubs are very popular with MTB riders in Europe. A friend
> > >>>>> visiting Germany rented a MTB there and to his surprise it came with a
> > >>>>> Rohloff hub. Considered almost normal there. In the US, not so, never
> > >>>>> seen one on the trails and I see a lot of bikes there.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The idea is that it is not normal/stupid to ride with an open gearbox in
> > >>>> bad conditions. According to that idea a gearhub is the way to go. If
> > >>>> you want a wide range (MTB) and a good efficiency (sportive riding) you
> > >>>> end up with a Rohloff hub naturally.
> > >>>> Your gearbox of your car is also closed and filled with oil. No?
> > >>>
> > > How many Europeans are using Rohloff hubs? A lot of people don't like
> > > the drag, weight, expense, complexity.
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.)
As for the complexity, it's a bullshit argument. Complexity matters only if it causes breakdowns or complicated or expensive service requirements. None of this is true of the Rolloff. The Rohloff is deliberately designed and built like the best agricultural machinery, so that it and lasts forever, so complexity is irrelevant. The Rohloff is also designed to minimize and simplify the service requirement. Once a year or every 3000 miles you buy a $20 kit kit, unscrew a drainplug, screw in the syringe, put in cleaning oil, ride the bike a bit, drain the cleaning oil, put in the running oil, screw in the drain plug. Also, at the same time, you undo one thumbscrew on the gear cable end box, commonly called the klickbox, shoot some grease (any type) in there, and do up the thumbscrew again. This takes about an hour at a leisurely pace but needn't take more than twenty minutes, part of it spent riding. What's so onerous about that?
>>>There is little if any long-term
> > > pay-off for the type of riding they do.
They haven't thought it through, or they haven't taken a systems approach.
>>>I know a lot of people who race
> > > mountain bikes -- pros, top national riders, strong local riders, and
> > > none of them use Rohloff hubs. None of my CX friends own them. I would
> > > think that if they were clearly superior for the type of riding done by
> > > this cohort (and the length of time they keep their bikes), I would see
> > > at least one.
I've seen only one Rohloff hub besides mine. There are coming up to 200,000 Rohloff hubs in all the world. Most of them are thought to belong to mudpluggers (Herr Rohloff's sport when he was young; he designed the box for them). The touring and utility and road fitments of Rohloff must be a minority. So I wouldn't expect to see many.
>>>Rohloff makes a great hub with lots of benefits for a
> > > certain crowd, but it is not the crowd I ride with.
Oh, it is, for some of them. They just haven't discovered it yet. When they do, they'll bend your ear about it till you want to scream.
> > > -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > There is no drag. There is no complexity. The weight is insignificant. Do
> > you think riding in muddy conditions with an open gearbox is wise? Please
> > let the pro riders and top national riders out of the equation. In really
> > tough and muddy conditions I see a lot of trouble with a derailleur system,
> > skipping chains, chain suck are the main issues. Why do you think the pro
> > CX riders change their bike for a clean one every 1 or 2 laps?
> > --
> > Lou
>
> See
http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf
Everyone has seen that report, and the many misinterpretations of it. Unless you're an elite racer with several other bikes standing by to change onto, the very slight extra drag of a Rohloff hub gearbox is irrelevant. Your friends haven't put their minds in gear yet: Berto was working with perfectly new and clean derailleur systems. It is widely known that the efficiency of derailleur systems drop sharply once they get dirty, or worn to the eventual point where they seize up, zero movement. It follows that on your average derailleur system the efficiency is less than 100%, and generally by much more than 4%. At this point, instantly, a Rohloff becomes more efficient, because it is closed, cannot get dirty, and for real-life purposes it is wear-proof, and anyway, such wear as does occur (gears bedding in at about 5000 miles) are beneficial in reducing drag; otherwise such drag as it proffers is constant.
> I'm also repeating reports by some people that certain ratios are especially draggy.
This is a psychosomatic effect. At the interface of the two gear clusters in the Rohloff gearbox when it is relatively new (and remember what Chalo said: a Rohloff is just starting to be run in when a Shimano HGB lies itself down to die) it is noisier than elsewhere, where a run-in gearbox is generally silent. This sound has much of the quality of human sighing or gasping for breath, just like a cyclist pedalling hard. Check Berto's numbers, and you'll discover this complaint isn't real.
No. You very next link is to part of a service manual. If you get and read the whole document, which comes in three parts, you'll discover that you can do virtually all replacements and repairs yourself, and that the factory gives you fully illustrated instructions that no American manufacturer can match, and videos on their netsite. But most people just find it more convenient to send the box to Rohloff, who generally turns it over in a couple of days and sends it back by courier, at their expense. Tourers in Outer Bttfck find this very convenient because Fedex is where their tools ain't. You're looking at it wrong, as a burden rather than a very convenient service unique to membership of the Rohloff club.
>
http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/3_Service_En_2014_06_web.pdf
There are also local, national or regional Rohloff service agents fully trained to perform any necessary repair. In any event, these instances of a hub being returned to Rolloff are so rare and wonderful that they are individually known to the community, and thus loom larger than, for instance, my two worn out Shimano IGH, which I didn't even think worth mentioning when they happened, several years ago.
> Assuming the bike is built for SS and doesn't need a chain tensioner, then I would definitely agree that IGHs avoid known problems with normal derailleur systems.
There are Rohloff mounting systems, so many that a complex decision tree is necessary, available for repurposed frames and also purpose-made frames. The purpose made frames don't require a chain tensioner or even a torque bar; generaly a frame must have sliders at the frame ends or provision for an eccentric bottom bracket to avoid a chain tensioner. Bikes supplied new with Rohloff boxes almost always do not have a chain tensioner.
>There are some real benefits to IGHs, and I'm not denying that. But suggesting that Americans are crazy for not spending $1,200 USD for a Rohloff IGH is over the top, particularly since they are probably most beneficial in situations that people never see (e.g. deep mud).
The question is really whether cyclists aren't silly for spending money again and again, and their valuable time too, on derailleurs when instead they can buy a Rohloff once and forget it.
>I've ridden my CX bike in deep mud, and shifting is not great, but it still works well enough -- and then I hose it off.
You'd go faster on a Rohloff after about three yards, the moment the first speck of mud gets on your derailleur and reduces its efficiency to below that of the sealed Rohloff.
>I've never been so disappointed with shifting performance that I felt the need for an IGH.
You have much IGH experience? It's a conveninece that grows on you.
I've been on IGH since 2002 and simply cannot imagine going back to the nuisance and inconvenience on the road of derailleurs, and their constant time-wasting demands for attention.
The only time I've ever had a derailleur collapse and lock up the rear wheel, it had the good sense to do so about twenty paces from the gate of my LBS... I gave the bike to the LBS free of charge and ordered a bike from Gazelle with an IGH.
Andre Jute