Utility Cycling - What is the Net Nuvinci Weight Penalty?

I am considering a Kona Ute and was wondering how much the weight will increase, net, adding a Nuvinci and subtracting the existing setup.

Thanks

John

The hub weighs about eight and a half pounds.
Not knowing how much your current set-up weighs I'm going to guess you would add about six pounds by using the NuVinci.

The Ute has a mix of Deore, Alivio, etc., type parts. 8 sp cassette.

You will only have one ring up front rather than three.
You will get to loose both of the derailers, and cassette, but you will have to keep a chain tensioner.
The rear hub.
Your chain will be a little shorter.

Weigh up those part and subtract that from 8.5 pounds.

Hmm, six more seems like a little too much for me.

What the NuVinci has going for it is a wide gear range for an IGH (internal gear hub), and it's incredibly durable.

Hmm, six more seems like a little too much for me.

You also may have forgotten to remove the weight of the old hub. However, regardless compared to the rest of the bike (and you and the hauling capacity of the bike) you're not talking a big weight penalty NET of everything.

No, I subtracted the existing hub's weight.

Personally, I'll consider the weight of the bike, empty, and without me on it, as I have to carry it up and down some stairs for each use. I love the idea od the Nuvinci, but the hub seems overbuilt for bikes, and in any case adds simply too much of a weight penalty, for me.

Get a NuVinci then lose six pounds of fat. Seriously, I can see Weight~Weenyism for a carbon Cervélo, but a cargo bike? AllenG has pretty much sold me on one for my LHT. It being able to take a lot of torque is far more important than the extra weight, and the price sure beats the Rohloff.

Get a NuVinci then lose six pounds of fat. Seriously, I can see Weight~Weenyism for a carbon Cervélo, but a cargo bike? AllenG has pretty much sold me on one for my LHT. It being able to take a lot of torque is far more important than the extra weight, and the price sure beats the Rohloff.

Actually, I am rather lean. If you think not wanting to add SIX POUNDS is being a weight weenie, then you have a rather unique definition of the term. The Nuvinci is designed to take the torque of a golf cart. Its use on a bike is rather overkill, no? People like you who use the "just lose weight" argument to any suggestion of reducing a bike's weight are posing a ludicrous non-seqitur.

"...pretty much sold you"? So, you don't actually have a Nuvinci, and are just adding your own, tertiary insight?

Actually, I am rather lean. If you think not wanting to add SIX POUNDS is being a weight weenie, then you have a rather unique definition of the term. The Nuvinci is designed to take the torque of a golf cart. Its use on a bike is rather overkill, no? People like you who use the "just lose weight" argument to any suggestion of reducing a bike's weight are posing a ludicrous non-seqitur.

"...pretty much sold you"? So, you don't actually have a Nuvinci, and are just adding your own, tertiary insight?

You should have put "I have already decided the NuVinci is too heavy for my surfboard/groceries/luggage~hauling bike, If you disagree with me, I will argue with you and I will imply you are fat." as part of your OP.

Actually, I am rather lean. If you think not wanting to add SIX POUNDS is being a weight weenie, then you have a rather unique definition of the term. The Nuvinci is designed to take the torque of a golf cart. Its use on a bike is rather overkill, no? People like you who use the "just lose weight" argument to any suggestion of reducing a bike's weight are posing a ludicrous non-seqitur.

"...pretty much sold you"? So, you don't actually have a Nuvinci, and are just adding your own, tertiary insight?

Having broken several IGHs due to over torquing them--no, no it's not overkill. But my main concern with my cargo bike is reliability.

The Nuvinci is, as far as I know, the absolute heaviest drivetrain you can install. You can subtract the existing drivetrain, you can subtract the front derailleur, subtract some chainrings, and subtract a few links of chain if you're really desperate to justify the hub, but even with all of those savings, it is still the heaviest drivetrain you're likely to find. If weight is up at the top of issues you need to consider for your bike, go with something else.

But I've been riding my bike for two weeks now, and I love it. I live in a 2nd story apartment, so that bike goes up and down the stairs at least twice a day, I definitely notice that the back is heavier than the front, but I have no problems carrying it. Of course the back is generally loaded up other gear, too, so it would be heavier with any hub. The shifting, if you can call it that, is smoother than anything I've ever felt. Up and down the stairs and lifting the bike unto the rack on the front of the bus are the only times I notice the weight of the hub. When I'm on the road, I only notice how much smoother this whole bike is than my previous derailleur bike was, although that is only in part because of the hub.

I'm sure if I had a bike that was made of ultra-light materials and stripped of all unneccesary components, I would notice a huge difference, but that's not how I ride. I tie on every piece of equipment I might need, add racks and fenders, and don't think twice about throwing something in the my bags "just in case." Because that's my attitude, the weight of the hub means nothing to me.

Is the hub overkill? I'm sure it is for many people. People who race think that a rack and fendears are overkill. People who ride fixies think any gearing at all is overkill. One guy in my area rides a unicycle to work. He probably thinks a frame that consists of more than a front fork is overkill. But it feels about right for me.

And if I were about to buy a 40+ lb. Cargo bike, I don't think I'd spend too much time worrying that the Nuvinci might be too heavy and built too sturdy for my bike. There are reasons not to go with a Nuvinci. The weight could be an issue on many other kinds of bikes (although I'm running the hub on a touring frame), but not a cargo bike, I wouldn't think. But the gear range is not as wide as a front and rear derailleur set up. The price is higher than many other drivetrain options, and only Rohloff makes a more expensive IGH, I think. Some people don't like IGH's in general because they are not as straightforward to maintain if something does go wrong with them. Those are all valid concerns, and I could see someone deciding against an IGH system because of them. But for a cargo bike, I think it's well within a reasonable weight range, and, on a cargo bike, or any bike, I don't understand the concern that it might be built to stand more than you can throw at it. I would put that in the "pro" column, not the "con."

...

To cut right to the heart of it: if SIX POUNDS is a real concern to you, DON'T BUY A UTE! And whatever youi doi, DON'T LOAD IT WITH CARGO.

To cut right to the heart of it: if SIX POUNDS is a real concern to you, DON'T BUY A UTE! And whatever youi doi, DON'T LOAD IT WITH CARGO.

SO LET'S Get THIS STRAIGHT.

If one is interested in an all around bike, capable of carrying clothes to the laundry, food from the grocery then they should accept a component of any weight, since the bike is used, sometimes, to carry heavy things? What is the logic here? I am not going to be carrying sacks of coffee to market. There is a range of uses one might put a utility bicycle to, isn't there? The Nuvinci seems a wonderfully made peice, with a weight penalty excessive for me, my lifestyle, my intended use,


If you like your Nuvinci, that is great - me choosing an alternative shouldn't upset you so much.

You should have put "I have already decided the NuVinci is too heavy for my surfboard/groceries/luggage~hauling bike, If you disagree with me, I will argue with you and I will imply you are fat." as part of your OP.

Are you talking to yourself?

Not knowing your intended use of course, but still: if you're considering an alternative drivetrain to the Kona, how about a Rohloff? It has a wider gear range than a NuVinci, and with very little weight penalty compared to a derailleur system. Or is it the CVT in NuVinci you're after?

--J

I know this is an older post, but I just measured the difference with a good scale.

My Nuvinci(set up with a single front 40t ring)wheel/tire comes in at 11.3 lb.

My old set up comes in at 8.4 lb. Keep in mind that there's nothing state of the art with this old set up!
Deore hub with old 7 speed, deore derailleur (front/rear), couple of rings.


So the cons of the hub would be 2.9 lb. extra and a reduction of 150% of gearing.

I think my rear wheel comes in just a smidge above 12 pounds with the fat tire I'm running.

It's been a great hub.

Six pounds is enough to care about, especially if you were on the fence to start with and aren't fully sold on the technology.

Don't some yahoos on the internet tell you different. I'm no weight weenie by any stretch, but 6 lbs. is enough to notice, especially when carrying the darn thing.

Six pounds is enough to care about, especially if you were on the fence to start with and aren't fully sold on the technology.

Don't some yahoos on the internet tell you different. I'm no weight weenie by any stretch, but 6 lbs. is enough to notice, especially when carrying the darn thing.

Depends on the application of the bike.
On a hill climber, no it's too heavy On a utility/cargo hauling bike, it's a great bomb proof silky smooth hub.

If weight didn't matter we'd all be rolling around on 75lb cargo bikes. If you built up a Yuba MUndo with heavy parts for whatever reason [low cost, availability, strength] you could easily build a bike you couldn't pedal up a steep hill.

OTOH you can't argue weight is the absolute most critical factor on a cargo bike either.

Like most things in life the answer is somewhere in the middle. Weight that adds needed strength or functionality to your cargo bike makes sense. High volume tough tires for example or a heavy duty double legged kickstand. If you give me three IGHs that operated identically, but were separated by a significant weight difference and cost I'd buy the lightest IGH I could afford.

I'm running a Rohloff in my Big Dummy currently and like it a lot. If I couldn't afford one I'd most likely put an Alfine with a double chainring on my BD. I've abused my Alfine fully loaded on an offroad tour with no issues and lots of sand/snow riding. A BD owner I know in Austria has been using an Alfine in his cargo rig with no issues for a year or two and he works that bike hard. The Alfine is light and reasonably inexpensive. The only issue I had with it was how durable it was, but it's doing fine in a number of cargo and heavily loaded touring applications so I'd be willing to give it a shot on my cargo bike.

In practice, the weight of the NuVinci hasn't been a concern. It shifts smoothly and since I'm running it on a commuter bike, it takes me where I want it to go.

I run one on my electric assist Xtra.
SRAM's 5 and 7 speed hubs would slip so badly they were irritating to the point of useless.
I put my first Rohloff on it and it held up fine, but moved it to my touring bike and replaced it with a NuVinci. The NuVinci has operated perfectly.

Durability was the primary concern. The NuVinci fills the need and at 1/4 the price of a Rohloff.
The NuVinci is also the nicest shifting hub I've ever used, even more so than my Rohloffs. When I build a cruiser for myself it very well may have a NuVinci laced up.

When weight is not an issue but durability and cost are the NuVinci is a wonderful hub. If weight is a concern the NuVinci is not for you.

Its application is more narrow than most IGHs but 1/4 the price of a Rohloff it does fill a need and is a fine piece of engineering.

Is the SRAM 3-speed constructed differently than the 5 and 7? A bunch of ebikers are starting to use these with motor chain drives.

Is the SRAM 3-speed constructed differently than the 5 and 7? A bunch of ebikers are starting to use these with motor chain drives.

I don't know, sorry.

I've now been using the Nuvinci hub for 6 months, using it to haul varying loads on my Big Dummy. For hauling loads, I really don't think there is anything better. It's great being able to push the cranks hard in the knowledge that the hub will not slip.

Like AllenG says though, it has a very limited application. I took my BD on a slightly longer ride (70km) and I wouldn't recommend the Nuvinci for that.

Is the SRAM 3-speed constructed differently than the 5 and 7? A bunch of ebikers are starting to use these with motor chain drives.

http://www.sram.com/en/service/sram/tech_manuals_2010.php - Gear Hub Systems

OR

http://www.sram.com/en/service/sram/tech_specs.php - Gear Hub Systems

A while ago, I was looking and one of those documents has torque limits and other things. There's a P5 Cargo edition that can withstand higher torques. Nuvinci trumps it soundly, though. That's not the answer to your question, but I'm pretty sure it will be in one of those two documents.

http://www.sram.com/en/service/sram/tech_manuals_2010.php - Gear Hub Systems

OR

http://www.sram.com/en/service/sram/tech_specs.php - Gear Hub Systems

A while ago, I was looking and one of those documents has torque limits and other things. There's a P5 Cargo edition that can withstand higher torques. Nuvinci trumps it soundly, though. That's not the answer to your question, but I'm pretty sure it will be in one of those two documents.


Among SRAM hubs only the P5 Cargo has a torque limit listed, 85 Nm. So far as I can determine it has been discontinued however as it is not shown as available on SRAM's web site other than in the PDF documents. You might email them to ask about it.

For comparison the only other hubs I have found with published input torque limits are the Rohloff which lists 100 Nm and the Nuvinci which specifies 130 NM. The Rohloff also lists a minimum input ratio of 2.35 to 1 or 2.50 to 1 depending on application and the NuVinci lists a minimum input ratio of 2 to 1. The Rohloff manual indicates that not following their input ratio guidelines will void the warranty. Not really a problem with the Rohloff as the reduction in the lowest gear, and overall range, allows a quite low lowest gear. My Civia Hyland Rohloff which is geared 45/16 gives a gear inch range of 21" to 110" with a input ratio of 2.81 to 1. At 2.35 to 1 minimum gear is about 18" IIRC. Minimum gear permitted for the NuVinci, if following Falbrook's input ratio recommendations, is 25" to 29" depending on wheel and tire size.

The SRAM 3 speed is a typical epicyclic three speed which works on the same basic principle as the Shimano and Sturmey Archer 3 speed hubs. Unless it uses better materials in manufacture or different internal engineering, not obvious from the disassembly instructions, I see no reason for it to be stronger than the other makes of 3 speed hubs.