Which is the best internally geared hub?
pizzaman_...@gmx.de
daily commuting distance of 14km per day. Before I rode a derailleure
bicycle. With massive problems during winter times because of frozen
bowden cables. For shifting pourpose it´s no big issue when they
frozen. But also the brake bowden cables wer frozen and from time to
time they torn apart. That´s no fun! The not covered chain needed
quite often oil... and it took me time and dirty hands to clean the
chain every half year. So I started examine how to improve the system
"Bicycle" for daily commuting!
The result up to now is a Fichtel & Sachs (F&S) Duomatic internally
geared hub (2 Speed). There is no bowden cable anymore you just have
to kick back the pedals. And the second advantage is the Duomatic
coaster brake. There are a lot marketing guys out there who tell you a
coster brake is old fashioned and no worth the to name it "brake". My
3 years experiance with the hub is great. The coaster brake functions
always also during rain or snow and will not freeze in winter and two
gears are enough when you cycle in a flat region.
I also added a Hebie Chainglider which protects the chain from the
environmental influences.
Now I want to built up a touring bicycle (Pourpose: Touring in hilly
regions with 4-5kg luggage!) with more than two gears and observed the
internal hub market. I tried to find the right specifications for
intern hubs and made a review.
The following hubs participate in the comparison.
* Shimano
o Nexus INTER-3
o Nexus INTER-7
o Nexus INTER-8
o Alfine (8 Speed)
* Sram
o T3
o P5
o P5 Cargo
o S7
o i-Motion 3
o i-Motion 9
* Sturmey Archer
o 3 Speed
o 5 Speed
o 8 Speed
* Rohloff
o Speedhub 500/14 (14 Speed)
* Fichtel & Sachs
o Torpedo Duomatic (2 Speed)
o Torpedo Automatic (2 Speed)
Up to now I´ll go for the Shimano Nexus INTER-7 or the SRAM i-Motion 9
and would like to read your comments about my decision and the
review.
http://hubstripping.wordpress.com/internal-gear-hub-review/
Gruß Marco
Ryan Cousineau
pizzaman_...@gmx.de wrote:
First, a few caveats:
-your required gearing depends a lot on how strong you are and how hilly
"hilly" is and how far and fast you're going. There are people who tour
on fixed-gear bicycles, after all. That said, I think anything less than
a 7-speed drivetrain will probably be annoying for touring in hilly
regions, and if you're serious about this project, the ludicrously
expensive Rohloff is clearly the best choice. If you can afford it.
-the new i-Motion 9 and Alfine hubs are virtually unavailable in North
America, so first-hand impressions are hard to come by.
Sheldon knows this stuff the best of anyone, and swears by the "Red
Band" (nice version) of the Nexus 8. It's expensive but good value, and
works really well, He says it's a clear upgrade from the pretty-good
Nexus 7.
Assuming they didn't add any design flaws, the Alfine is probably a bit
better still, but we're not yet clear on what has actually changed. It
appears to be a matter of an extra bearing on the Alfine axle.
So if you can't afford the Rohloff, the Nexus 8 is probably the best
choice. A friend has a bike based around that hub, and loves it. Sheldon
sells the gloriously desireable San Jos8 which is a turn-key version of
what you want to build, but you would have to add racks, fenders, and oh
yeah, fly to Massachusetts, because they don't sell it by mail-order.
However, it's quite possible your local shop could order you a Bianchi
San Jose and the parts to convert it to Jos8 spec.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/bianchi-sanjos8/index.html
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
Tim McNamara
> I started riding an internal gear hub 3 years ago. The reason was my
> daily commuting distance of 14km per day. Before I rode a
> derailleure bicycle. With massive problems during winter times
> because of frozen bowden cables. For shifting pourpose it´s no big
> issue when they frozen. But also the brake bowden cables wer frozen
> and from time to time they torn apart. That´s no fun! The not covered
> chain needed quite often oil... and it took me time and dirty hands
> to clean the chain every half year. So I started examine how to
> improve the system "Bicycle" for daily commuting!
>
> The result up to now is a Fichtel & Sachs (F&S) Duomatic internally
> geared hub (2 Speed). There is no bowden cable anymore you just have
> to kick back the pedals. And the second advantage is the Duomatic
> coaster brake. There are a lot marketing guys out there who tell you
> a coster brake is old fashioned and no worth the to name it "brake".
> My 3 years experiance with the hub is great. The coaster brake
> functions always also during rain or snow and will not freeze in
> winter and two gears are enough when you cycle in a flat region.
>
> I also added a Hebie Chainglider which protects the chain from the
> environmental influences.
>
> Now I want to built up a touring bicycle (Pourpose: Touring in hilly
> regions with 4-5kg luggage!) with more than two gears and observed
> the internal hub market. I tried to find the right specifications for
> intern hubs and made a review.
Is that "4 to 5 kg" or "45 kg" with an extraneous dash inserted? If the
former, you've got lots of options and a couple of very good ones: the
SRAM T3 or P5, which can be had with or without coaster brake. If the
latter, you've really only got one options: the Rohloff 14 speed (which
will cost you the equivalent of a subprime house payment in its 5th
year).
> http://hubstripping.wordpress.com/internal-gear-hub-review/
Not too bad. It reads a bit oddly in English. There are efficiency
issues that I did not see mentioned, one of which is using larger than
typical chainring and sprocket to improve efficiency.
pizzaman_...@gmx.de
> In article <1192391729.686233.114...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
Ryan,
I agree when I compare the hubs the result is Speedhub. That´s
something I could have answered before I compared the hubs in the
review. The Rohloff is the MAXIMUM possible! But are there other
advantages & disadvantages! E.g. price, complexity of built up,
maintenance effort, weight, ....
My aim is to find and select the IDEAL hub for a certain pourpose.
I´ll cycle with my Touring Bicycle in a hilly region. The hills have a
altitude beween 200 and 400 meter and the inclination of the roads is
around 5% max. 10%.
First: I try to find a hub with small gear steps. Second: Gear steps
of the same size over the whole gear ratio range.
The result was Shimano Nexus INTER-7 and SRAM i-MOTION 9 fits best.
What´s the next step?
In a third step I will place the overall gear ratio on the right
starting point! This will be the smallest necessary gear ratio I need
(10% inclination). Therefore I will choose the appropiate chain wheel
and sprocket.
Last Step: Check the largest gear! Here I will see if I need the large
overall gear ratio of a i-MOTION 9 or a Rohloff Speedhub or maybe the
Nexus INTER-7 is already fine.
Do you agree on the procedure?
Better ideas?
pizzaman_...@gmx.de
> In article <1192391729.686233.114...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
It´s 4 to 5 kg. This means light luggage!
What do you think about the following procedure to find the IDEAL hub?
Ryan,
I agree when I compare the hubs the result is Speedhub. That´s
something I could have answered before I compared the hubs in the
review. The Rohloff is the MAXIMUM possible! But are there other
advantages & disadvantages! E.g. price, complexity of built up,
maintenance effort, weight, ....
My aim is to find and select the IDEAL hub for a certain pourpose.
I´ll cycle with my Touring Bicycle in a hilly region. The hills have a
altitude beween 200 and 400 meter and the inclination of the roads is
around 5% max. 10%.
First: I try to find a hub with small gear steps. Second: Gear steps
of the same size over the whole gear ratio range.
The result was Shimano Nexus INTER-7 and SRAM i-MOTION 9 fits best.
What´s the next step?
In a third step I will place the overall gear ratio on the right
starting point! This will be the smallest necessary gear ratio I need
(10% inclination). Therefore I will choose the appropiate chain wheel
and sprocket.
Last Step: Check the largest gear! Here I will see if I need the large
overall gear ratio of a i-MOTION 9 or a Rohloff Speedhub or maybe the
Nexus INTER-7 is already fine.
Maybe I make a mistake here! So comments are welcome.
Gruß Marco
Sure efficiency is a important criteria. I have no neutral information
yet about this issues (measurements). Sure every hub producer tells us
the efficency is on the deraileure drivetrain level!
Hank Wirtz
Why the Inter-7 over the Red-Band Inter-8? Looking at current hub
prices, the premium for the 8 is only about 10%.
I have a Red-Band Inter-8 on one of my bikes and it's great. I have a
gear range of 35-90 inches (42T front, 19T rear, 26x1.75" tire). Not a
big enough high to hit 40mph on a downhill, but big enough for
practical riding. Most of my cruising on the flats is between 6th and
7th gear. Starting from a dead stop is usually in 4th or 5th. 1st-3rd
are for hill climbing. A great bike for getting groceries, with my big
Wald basket on the front.
pizzaman_...@gmx.de
In the review I had a look on the gear steps. I think it´s important
to have always the perfect gear for the actual cycling situation.
http://hubstripping.wordpress.com/internal-gear-hub-review/
What I found out is the following:"Shimano tells us they improved the
Nexus INTER-7 hub to the Nexus INTER-8 / ALFINE. Sorry! That´s not the
case according gear steps. Have look on the chart. The chart jumps
down from 22,2% to 13,8% and once again up and down. This is no well
balanced hub. If you want to buy a internal gear hub from Shimano take
the well balanced Nexus INTER-7."
In my opinion not the amount of gears is important. The steps between
the gears and their size over the whole gear ratio.
Do you agree?
Gruß Marco
Hank Wirtz
> What I found out is the following:"Shimano tells us they improved the
> Nexus INTER-7 hub to the Nexus INTER-8 / ALFINE. Sorry! That´s not the
> case according gear steps. Have look on the chart. The chart jumps
> down from 22,2% to 13,8% and once again up and down. This is no well
> balanced hub. If you want to buy a internal gear hub from Shimano take
> the well balanced Nexus INTER-7."
>
> In my opinion not the amount of gears is important. The steps between
> the gears and their size over the whole gear ratio.
> Do you agree?
>
Not really, no. In real-world riding, the difference between the
shifts make a whole lot of sense. 1st-2nd is a big jump. 1st is your
bail-out gear, and you're going to stay out of that gear unless you
need a _really_ low one. Smaller shifts from 2nd-3rd-4th make sense
for maintaining cadence up most hills. Bigger shifts from 4th-5th-6th
are good for taking off from a stop on the flats and getting up to
speed quickly, and small shifts between 6th-7th-8th help maintain
cadence while cruising on the flats. To me, that shifting pattern
makes much more sense than constant 15% or 17% shifts on every gear.
Plus, the bearings on the Inter-8 Red Band are of much higher quality.
pizzaman_...@gmx.de
Interesting aspects!
When this is the environment and way you use the INTER-8 I agree on
your argumentation. From my standpoint it could easy happen with a
INTER-8 (max. gear steps of 22%) that you have the feeling the next
upper gear is to "big" and the actual gear is to "low" according gear
ratio. With the result to change your cadence to adapt on the
situation.
The needle bearings are a real plus for the SG-8R25 (PREMIUM)! Here is
a picture of them:
http://www.hubstripping.com/shimano-inter8/shimano-nexus-inter-8-changeability.jpg
I just posted a special page on hubstripping only for the Shimano
Nexus INTER-8:
http://hubstripping.wordpress.com/nexus-inter-8-shimano/
It´s still a great hub! But in my point of few not the IDEAL!
Gruß Marco
Tim McNamara
pizzaman_...@gmx.de wrote:
> It愀 still a great hub! But in my point of few not the IDEAL!
What you appear to be looking for is a continuously variable hub gear.
No hub gear is ever going to achieve your ideal.
One of the reasons that derailleurs triumphed in the marketplace over
hub gears is that wider range and finer gradations within that range are
so much easier to accomplish. Hub gears are fun- I quite like my SRAM
T3- and do have something to offer in terms of utility riding in
frequently wet weather, but in terms of gearing derailleurs will always
best hub gears.
Andreas Oehlert, IIRC, was shown in Velovision a couple of years on his
bike with a hub gear, chain case, hub generator, fenders and rain cape-
an almost ideal setup for frequent wet weather commuting. I've had
thoughts about emulating that setup several times.
Ted Bennett
> pizzaman_...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> > It´s still a great hub! But in my point of few not the IDEAL!
>
> What you appear to be looking for is a continuously variable hub gear.
> No hub gear is ever going to achieve your ideal.
Tim, a CVT is now available. Ellsworth makes a bike with it. Here's a
video of the mechanism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVPjhmTThPo
From what I have heard, it has issues with weight and efficiency.
Planetary gearing still seems to be better in those respects.
The OP may want to consider the Rohloff 14-speed if he wants more range,
but it is heavy. On the other hand, purchasing it will lighten his
wallet considerably.
Ted
--
Ted Bennett
Tim McNamara
<tedbennett-D8E6F...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Ted Bennett <tedbe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > pizzaman_...@gmx.de wrote:
> >
> > > It愀 still a great hub! But in my point of few not the IDEAL!
> >
> > What you appear to be looking for is a continuously variable hub
> > gear. No hub gear is ever going to achieve your ideal.
>
> Tim, a CVT is now available. Ellsworth makes a bike with it. Here's
> a video of the mechanism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVPjhmTThPo
>
> From what I have heard, it has issues with weight and efficiency.
> Planetary gearing still seems to be better in those respects.
That's obvious just from looking at it. The drag issues look huge, and
it also looks like it would be very sensitive to temperature changes.
pizzaman_...@gmx.de
>
> > > > It´s still a greathub! But in my point of few not the IDEAL!
>
> > > What you appear to be looking for is a continuously variablehub
>
> > Tim, a CVT is now available. Ellsworth makes a bike with it. Here's
> > a video of the mechanism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVPjhmTThPo
>
> > From what I have heard, it has issues with weight and efficiency.
> > Planetary gearing still seems to be better in those respects.
>
> That's obvious just from looking at it. The drag issues look huge, and
> it also looks like it would be very sensitive to temperature changes.
>
> > The OP may want to consider the Rohloff 14-speed if he wants more
> > range, but it is heavy. On the other hand, purchasing it will
> > lighten his wallet considerably.
I agree weight and friction issues are the disadvantages of the CVT.
When the principle will be developed further it´s alternative for the
planetary hubs.
I just found an interesting article from BERND Rohloff. He discuss the
importance of the "IDEAL" gear for the engine (human leg). And the
answer is:
Small (15%) and constant gear steps over the appropiate overall gear
ratio! YES!
I copied the arguments from Bernd Rohloff in a comment at the end of
the internal gear hub review.
http://hubstripping.wordpress.com/internal-gear-hub-review/#comment-59
I will check the prices for the Shimano Nexus INTER-7 and the SRAM i-
MOTION9 because I´ll build up the rear wheel by myself.
Thanks for your feedback and have fun cycling!
Gruß Marco
Tim McNamara
pizzaman_...@gmx.de wrote:
> I just found an interesting article from BERND Rohloff. He discuss
> the importance of the "IDEAL" gear for the engine (human leg). And
> the answer is:
>
> Small (15%) and constant gear steps over the appropiate overall gear
> ratio! YES!
"YES?" Why "YES!" with such emphasis? Since this is Rohloff's opinion
that happens to support the hub he designed, it is not an independent
verification of anything.
And he's also not necessarily right, either. The human body has a much
broader range of efficient functioning than is the case for engines.
Mistaking humans for "engines" causes all kinds of conceptual problems
and is a practice that should be stopped.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I just found an interesting article from BERND Rohloff. He discuss
>> the importance of the "IDEAL" gear for the engine (human leg). And
>> the answer is:
>> Small (15%) and constant gear steps over the appropriate overall
>> gear ratio! YES!
> "`YES?" Why "YES!" with such emphasis? Since this is Rohloff's
> opinion that happens to support the hub he designed, it is not an
> independent verification of anything.
> And he's also not necessarily right, either. The human body has a
> much broader range of efficient functioning than is the case for
> engines. Mistaking humans for "engines" causes all kinds of
> conceptual problems and is a practice that should be stopped.
Try telling that to the Spin Coaches. I agree that the human can work
at various speeds. Some folks can climb stairs, two at a time, others
have a hard enough time taking them singly... achieving the same rate
of climb.
Jobst Brandt
pizzaman_...@gmx.de
Sure but when they spin or climb up stairs (two at a time) is this
efficient? Also I think efficiency is not everything when we come back
to real life. The other factor is e.g. money and the fact that my
bicycles stand outside... in the rain. There is always the danger of
burglary. So the IDEAL compromise according money and gear ratio
steps.... is for my pourpose the both hubs I mentioned.
Gruß Marco
pizzaman_...@gmx.de
> In article <1192911509.518634.47...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
I was enthusiastic after reading this comments. Sure Bernd wants to
push his hub! But the procedure to choose a hub and what are the
important key values of a hub fitted in my hub-world!
I think these things are not related to the Rohloff hub!
Gruß Marco (a human being!)
Ben C
My bike has 18 gears which are good for speeds in the range 0 to 30mph.
My car has only five for 0 to 110mph.
About 4 of the bike's gears overlap, so there are really 14 gears. This
still means about one gear for every 2mph increment.
Surely the car engine is much the more flexible?
Tim McNamara
pizzaman_...@gmx.de wrote:
> On 21 Okt., 01:55, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > Tim McNamara writes:
> > >> I just found an interesting article from BERND Rohloff. He
> > >> discuss the importance of the "IDEAL" gear for the engine (human
> > >> leg). And the answer is: Small (15%) and constant gear steps
> > >> over the appropriate overall gear ratio! YES!
> > >
> > > "`YES?" Why "YES!" with such emphasis? Since this is Rohloff's
> > > opinion that happens to support the hub he designed, it is not an
> > > independent verification of anything. And he's also not
> > > necessarily right, either. The human body has a much broader
> > > range of efficient functioning than is the case for engines.
> > > Mistaking humans for "engines" causes all kinds of conceptual
> > > problems and is a practice that should be stopped.
> >
> > Try telling that to the Spin Coaches. I agree that the human can
> > work at various speeds. Some folks can climb stairs, two at a
> > time, others have a hard enough time taking them singly...
> > achieving the same rate of climb.
>
> Sure but when they spin or climb up stairs (two at a time) is this
> efficient? Also I think efficiency is not everything when we come
> back to real life. The other factor is e.g. money and the fact that
> my bicycles stand outside... in the rain. There is always the
> danger of burglary. So the IDEAL compromise according money and gear
> ratio steps.... is for my pourpose the both hubs I mentioned.
The "best hub" for your purposes is a decision only you can make and
that wasn't what I was addressing in my post.
SMS
> So if you can't afford the Rohloff, the Nexus 8 is probably the best
> choice. A friend has a bike based around that hub, and loves it. Sheldon
> sells the gloriously desireable San Jos8 which is a turn-key version of
> what you want to build, but you would have to add racks, fenders, and oh
> yeah, fly to Massachusetts, because they don't sell it by mail-order.
> However, it's quite possible your local shop could order you a Bianchi
> San Jose and the parts to convert it to Jos8 spec.
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/bianchi-sanjos8/index.html
I wish that Harris would order up a batch of Hebie chain guards from
Germany for the San Jos8.
Tim McNamara
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
Demonstrating that we're not engines. Trying to conceptualize ourselves
as engines leads to false conclusions about what makes for "efficient"
cycling.
I did a casual 56 mile ride yesterday on my 3 speed. My average speed
over that route was 16.2 mph, basically the same as my average speed at
the same perceived exertion over the same route on any of my derailleur
bikes. My cadence was quite a bit more variable because the steps
between the gears are quite a bit larger than is the case with my other
bikes. Clearly the 3 speed would be considered "less efficient" because
I could not keep my cadence within some "ideal" range (say, 80-120 RPM
has is often recommended in books), but it made not one whit of
difference in terms of performance nor in terms of enjoyment.
Ryan Cousineau
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
Well, as others have mentioned, humans are not internal combustion
engines, and we share neither the quirks nor the characteristics of them.
When you talk about, for example, usable powerbands, a typical car
engine might generate usable power from 1000-6000 rpm, which is a "6x"
range. In terms of actual running range, it probably stalls at 600 rpm
or so, and maybe it runs to 6600 rpm before the rev limiter kicks in, so
call it "11x" running range.
That, broadly speaking describes the width of the powerband, though
usually the term is used to describe the area of the rev range where the
engine is putting out a high percentage of its maximum power. So a
racerboy might describe this same theoretical engine as having a 2000
rpm powerband, from 5200-6200 rpm or some such. It matters not.
The thing that distinguishes humans, in this case, is that they don't
stall. You and I can generate power at as few rpm as can be imagined,
and most of us can manage 100 rpm. A few can go rather higher than that.
That's pretty flexible! If you assume a practical 10-120 rpm range (10
rpm being not inconceivable as an "instantaneous" rev rate shortly after
a standing start), you're at 12x already. Better than the car!
Of course, humans in good form produce a horsepower or so for short
periods of time. 50cc scooters put out 6-10 times that power, and cars
produce hundreds of times that power in some cases, and will do so until
they run out of gas. For that, we'll put up with the compromise of
needing a clutch and not having a 0 rpm stall speed.
Right now the future looks very electrical, and EVs motors are the best
of both worlds (0 rpm stall speeds plus high power). It is only in the
storage area where EVs let us down, managing to be mostly left
hopelessly flailing in the face of the cheaply available energy capacity
of diesel, gas, and a few other hydrocarbons.
However, the future is getting closer: Tesla may actually start putting
cars in the hands of customers in the next few months, and if you're
willing to accept restricted ranges and slow charge times, the future
can be here now. There's a few EV companies that will sell you (as far
as I can tell) a vast panoply of crappy cars that comprise an unserious
challenge to internal-combustion engine cars and trucks.
The reason the future is not here yet is that the Tesla costs about
$80,000 for a two-seat sportster, and they're projecting about $50,000
for an upcoming 4-door sedan. These are prices that may challenge the
high end of these markets, but not the mainstream. The price is largely
in their high-end battery packs, which are lithium-ion.
Back to the issue of cars versus humans on bikes, we're so adaptable
that we can use the Rube Goldbergian derailer drivetrain, the most
efficient quick-shifting multi-speed drivetrain ever conceived. This
same drivetrain is poorly adapted to the requirements of almost every
other powerplant known to man, and thus is virtually unused outside of
cycling.
Planetary gearboxes, on the other hand, are found all over the place.
For 5 newsgroup points, why do bicycles generally use gearhubs, while
most every other power application puts the gearbox at the other end of
the final drive? I have some ideas, but no decisive answers. As a hint,
there is one class of bicycle where frame-mounted gearboxes are being
experimented with.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
A cyclist's efficiency varies relatively little with
power output or rpm (=cadence). You can't say the
same for gas car engines. I'm defining efficieny
as power output divided by fuel burnt (=calories burnt)
and that's about 20-25% for most humans in workable
ranges of power and revs.
Car engines, of course, are significantly more efficient
in specific design regimes, which is one reason you'll burn
a lot more gas if you drive a muscle car or Ferrari around
at 15 mph all day vs doing the same in a gas golf cart.
For comparison, you could cycle for several hours
at 10 mph and not even need to eat more than your usual
lunch, although you might be bored spitless.
The reason cars get away with having few gears, working
outside the powerband, and so on, is that they have a
fair amount of excess power. It would be a bigger
consideration if one were driving an early IC engine
without so much power to spare.
Ben
A Muzi
>>>> I just found an interesting article from BERND Rohloff. He discuss
>>>> the importance of the "IDEAL" gear for the engine (human leg). And
>>>> the answer is:
>>>> Small (15%) and constant gear steps over the appropiate overall gear
>>>> ratio! YES!
>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>> "YES?" Why "YES!" with such emphasis? Since this is Rohloff's opinion
>>> that happens to support the hub he designed, it is not an independent
>>> verification of anything.
>>> And he's also not necessarily right, either. The human body has a much
>>> broader range of efficient functioning than is the case for engines.
>>> Mistaking humans for "engines" causes all kinds of conceptual problems
>>> and is a practice that should be stopped.
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> My bike has 18 gears which are good for speeds in the range 0 to 30mph.
>> My car has only five for 0 to 110mph.
>> About 4 of the bike's gears overlap, so there are really 14 gears. This
>> still means about one gear for every 2mph increment.
>> Surely the car engine is much the more flexible?
Discussed well by Archibald Sharp long long ago. A bicycle is just about
the only common item that's geared up not geared down.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Ryan Cousineau
A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > Planetary gearboxes, on the other hand, are found all over the place.
> > For 5 newsgroup points, why do bicycles generally use gearhubs, while
> > most every other power application puts the gearbox at the other end of
> > the final drive? I have some ideas, but no decisive answers. As a hint,
> > there is one class of bicycle where frame-mounted gearboxes are being
> > experimented with.
>
> Discussed well by Archibald Sharp long long ago. A bicycle is just about
> the only common item that's geared up not geared down.
Whoa! I hadn't even thought of that. And it's more right than any answer
I had in mind.
7-league wheels,
Tim McNamara
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > Planetary gearboxes, on the other hand, are found all over the
> > place. For 5 newsgroup points, why do bicycles generally use
> > gearhubs, while most every other power application puts the gearbox
> > at the other end of the final drive? I have some ideas, but no
> > decisive answers. As a hint, there is one class of bicycle where
> > frame-mounted gearboxes are being experimented with.
>
> Discussed well by Archibald Sharp long long ago. A bicycle is just
> about the only common item that's geared up not geared down.
You know, I'd never thought about that. 1:1 gearing is normally the low
end of cycling gearing, whereas it's near the top end of car and truck
gearing.
Tom Sherman
For road bicycles. Most ATBs have somewhere from a 24/32 to 22/34 low gear.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!