Tandem Cycling - Tandem touring with a Rohloff

I know there are people out there running a Rohloff on their tandem, right?

I'm starting to build up my first tandem and want to use a Rohloff hub with 700c wheels. We're a 300lb team who will do some touring (~40 lbs of gear) along with long day rides. I'm having trouble finding testimonials from people who have a touring tandem that uses the Rohloff hub. My main concern comes from the 32 spokes that the Rohloff forces you to use. I know the Rohloff wheel ends up being strong due to the lack of dishing and the shorter spokes, but is it strong enough for loaded touring?

Anyone with any first-hand experience please let me know!

hi
We have a Cannondale tandem+rohloff, works fine
No probs with that combination, check out some pic's here...www.sheeptrickteam.com

lieven

There was an extensive ride report of a 40,000 km round the world tour by Karen and Ben:

www.karennben.com

But when I looked for it today the link did not work, the trip was done in 2003-05 or something like that. Try the link later, but if it does not come up I can tell you that they reported to be very satisfied with their Rohloff on 26" wheels for the duration of their trip, only maintenance performed was a change of oil.

Maintenance of a conventional drive train over that distance would certainly have been a lot more extensive.

Rohloff hub with dual Gates belt drives would be cool.

Looks like Co-Motion now does a Speedster with Rohloff and Gates.

Does your tandem have 700c wheels? I know Thorn makes tandems with 26" Rohloff wheels, but I'm looking for one with 700c.

I agree that the dual belt drive would be cool, but I'm not convinced it would be any type of improvement. Those belts are REALLY expensive (~$140 each) and are said to last about the same as a chain. I guess not having to lube the system at all would be great, but other than that, what do you gain?

Does your tandem have 700c wheels? I know Thorn makes tandems with 26" Rohloff wheels, but I'm looking for one with 700c.

I agree that the dual belt drive would be cool, but I'm not convinced it would be any type of improvement. Those belts are REALLY expensive (~$140 each) and are said to last about the same as a chain. I guess not having to lube the system at all would be great, but other than that, what do you gain?

I'd heard they last substantially longer (2-3x) than a chain. Belt + pulleys is said to be lighter than chain + chainrings. [Rolhoff + short chain + single chainring is similar to rear der + cluster + freehub + multiple chainring + front der]. Plus, no chain tattoo, ever - on you, your stoker, or your car/minivan's upholstery, if you put it inside (we do).

Debatable (see other threads for evidence of debatability) improvement in power transmission: new, clean chain probably more efficient, old, dirty chain, probably less efficient - but it's hard to be really sure from all the noise in the debate.

My issue is that we shift a *lot* more on the tandem than on singles, and closely spaced gearing is more important. If, for example, one of you is good for 70-95 RPM, and the other for 85-110 RPM, then as a couple you want to always have a gear that puts you at 85-95 RPM, so you'd need gears no further apart than 11% on the tandem while on a single 30% is OK, and you'll be shifting more frequently, unless you live where it's very flat. If, on the other hand, you both are happy with (e.g.) 70-110, that's more than plenty for the spacing of a Rohloff (13.6%). This is an intentionally contrived example, but it illustrates the point.

I'd heard they last substantially longer (2-3x) than a chain. Belt + pulleys is said to be lighter than chain + chainrings. [Rolhoff + short chain + single chainring is similar to rear der + cluster + freehub + multiple chainring + front der]. Plus, no chain tattoo, ever - on you, your stoker, or your car/minivan's upholstery, if you put it inside (we do).

Debatable (see other threads for evidence of debatability) improvement in power transmission: new, clean chain probably more efficient, old, dirty chain, probably less efficient - but it's hard to be really sure from all the noise in the debate.

My issue is that we shift a *lot* more on the tandem than on singles, and closely spaced gearing is more important. If, for example, one of you is good for 70-95 RPM, and the other for 85-110 RPM, then as a couple you want to always have a gear that puts you at 85-95 RPM, so you'd need gears no further apart than 11% on the tandem while on a single 30% is OK, and you'll be shifting more frequently, unless you live where it's very flat. If, on the other hand, you both are happy with (e.g.) 70-110, that's more than plenty for the spacing of a Rohloff (13.6%). This is an intentionally contrived example, but it illustrates the point.
I don't think there are many tandems teams (especially for touring) that use a rear cluster with less than 28 teeth. This will have jumps between gears of more than the Rohloff's 13.6%.

My issue is that we shift a *lot* more on the tandem than on singles, and closely spaced gearing is more important.

If this is a good point for tandems in general, perhaps moreso for loaded touring, as you'll need more range on your gearing to handle the load, which further spreads the spacing. I too shift a lot more on the tandem, as momentum is a bigger deal and I am constantly seeking the just right cadence and effort. That is why I really like my Campy 11 speed (12-29). The more cogs the better.

I have a Shimano 8 speed hub on a half-bike, and the difference in drive efficiency is noticeable. It is good for quick trips and errands, but I'd not want to ride it for >10 miles. If you are losing watts in your hub, I don't think you'll like it.

I'm looking for one with 700c.

All of the Rohloff tandems that I have seen on the web have 26" wheels except for the Co-Motion Speedster Rohloff. This guy drills extra holes in the Rohloff gearcase to produce a 48-spoke wheel: http://rideyourbike.com/48spokerohloff.html

I a few weeks my cannondale race tandem will be transformed to a travel Rohloff tandem, i'll post pic and let you guys know how it rides...

I don't think there are many tandems teams (especially for touring) that use a rear cluster with less than 28 teeth. This will have jumps between gears of more than the Rohloff's 13.6%.

Good point. We ride with an 11-28 around town and a 12-34 for touring. We use the 11-28 because we like the closer spacing; we use the 12-34 because we want the wider range when touring.

With the 11-28 we don't actually have larger than 13.6% steps most of the time. The top four are big-ring, and have steps of 9.8, 8.3, 7.7%; the next is the small cog and the middle ring, which is a step of 4.5%, then back to 9.8, 8.3, 7.7 for the next three. That covers the top seven usable gears. The bottom three are granny-only, and we're not so worried about fine tuning when climbing something steep enough to need those. Which leaves five steps that are bigger than we'd like.

With a Rohloff I'd have one set of gears for everything, unless I change the chain and ring or sprocket. I guess that would be possible.

No chain tattoo with Gates belt . . .
NO chain tattoo for us with chains . . . we do not use oil/spray/wet stuff on our chains. We use the old-fashioned hot wax (parafin wax) method for lubrication. Very smooth running and super clean chains.
Have ridden a prototype tandem with the Gates-type belt for crossover years ago. Was not overly impressed.

I'm enjoying the belt drive and Rohloff discussion, but does anyone have any input on whether they would trust a 32 spoke Rohloff wheel for touring? I'm wondering if bulking-up the wheel by using a Velocity chukker or dyad rim could provide the extra strength that a 26" would inherently have.

For what it's worth, I have read examples of the MTBR forum of people running a Rohloff on their 29er tandems and loving it. But while most would say that mountain biking is more punishing on a wheel than loaded touring, I'm not so sure. Thoughts?

I would also be interested in getting a Rohloff on a couple of my bikes, including the tandem, if the gear jumps weren't so large. If they made a version with only a 400% range, but gaps of about 11% then I'd be all over it. 13.6% is OK for mountain bikes, but not for road bikes. Also note that there is no good way to mount a Rohloff shifter on drop bars (although there are compromise options).


I don't think there are many tandems teams (especially for touring) that use a rear cluster with less than 28 teeth. This will have jumps between gears of more than the Rohloff's 13.6%.

As stated above, this is wrong. The 11-28 SRAM & Shimano 10-speed cassettes do have one jump of 15.8% and one of 13.6%, but the other steps are smaller. Because of these two large jumps, I've stopped using the 11-28 and instead have gone with a 12-28 10-speed, which has no jumps bigger than 13.3%, both IRD and BBB make such cassettes. Campy users have other, even better options of cassettes with 28 or 29 tooth cogs and small jumps between gears.

Gear spacing really is the biggest drawback of hub gears. For people like me, who are obsessed with a consistent cadence, it is a deal-killer for the currently available hubs.

i use the Rohloff on my tandem in combination with a front derailleur, (36/50) , that give's me a wide range of gears, i do lot of road rides with, don't have problems with the jumps between the gears.
For the race/travel tandem i'm building up with a RF , i'll use the same combination, maybe a 15 instaed of a 16 sprocket on the RF, but 36/50 on the front

All of the Rohloff tandems that I have seen on the web have 26" wheels except for the Co-Motion Speedster Rohloff. This guy drills extra holes in the Rohloff gearcase to produce a 48-spoke wheel: http://rideyourbike.com/48spokerohloff.html
Drilling extra holes leaves less material on the flanges. IMHO an even better solution is this extra ring for the 48 spoke holes, made by Vittorio (http://www.vittorio.nl)

http://www.vittorio.nl/db/WAS482ec8be939f9/flenzen.jpg

http://www.dirty-pages.net/images/nieuws/323_1275243767.jpg.

I don't think you'd have a problem with 32 spokes. It's just a matter of picking a good rim. Deep-V? You want a stiff rim section. Spoke tension (preload) is around 110kgf. The load you'll be adding isn't that great in comparison, spread around a lot of spokes and two wheels. You'll want to build the wheels carefully with a tension meter, but that's just good practice. We did a loaded tour on some iffy roads with a 36H Deep-V rear. 310 lb. team, 40 lb. load all on the rear, home-built wheel. Nothing moved at all. I don't think you'd miss the 4 spokes.

OTOH, we're running Chris King hubs and their tandem hub flange spacing is quite close to symmetrical. I don't know how the Rohloff compares.

On our tour, we met a Swedish couple on the road for 16 months on Rohloff hubs.

We love our Gates. We only have about 1000 miles on it, but no sign of wear, haven't messed with the eccentric since I got the belt tension adjusted to suit me, nor has it changed. I'm guessing it would go around the world, no problem. People are getting great results running Gates on 24H mtb events.

Here's a document with more Rohloff info:
http://www.sjscycles.com/pdfFiles/LivingWithARohloffWeb.pdf

We have found gear inches of 117" to 21" to be effective for touring for our not particularly strong team. We spent most of our time in the 54" - 78" range, which would argue for Rohloff gearing toward the upper end of the range. But then it is a tandem and goes pretty good. We found that being loaded reduced our cruising speed by much less than we expected. I find that I like my gears closest together at the bottom end of the range because climbing is when I'm working hardest and keeping the right cadence is the most important. Going on the flat, I can ride anywhere in the 80-95 cadence range and be OK, but climbing I want to be within just a couple rpm of ideal. I normally leave the bike in the big ring unless I need a ratio below 54".

i use the Rohloff on my tandem in combination with a front derailleur, (36/50) , that give's me a wide range of gears, i do lot of road rides with, don't have problems with the jumps between the gears.
For the race/travel tandem i'm building up with a RF , i'll use the same combination, maybe a 15 instaed of a 16 sprocket on the RF, but 36/50 on the front

Why would you need a bigger gear range than what the Rohloff already offers you, which is more than 500%? I could see the point in using half-step gearing up front (e.g., 42 & 44 tooth chainrings) so that the gaps between the Rohloff gears are halved, but then you still need a front derailleur and a chain tensioner / rear derailleur, which kinda defeats the point of the IGH.

Thanks for the reply!


OTOH, we're running Chris King hubs and their tandem hub flange spacing is quite close to symmetrical. I don't know how the Rohloff compares.

Are you running 700c? Specifically, what rims are you using?

Does your tandem have 700c wheels? I know Thorn makes tandems with 26" Rohloff wheels, but I'm looking for one with 700c.

I agree that the dual belt drive would be cool, but I'm not convinced it would be any type of improvement. Those belts are REALLY expensive (~$140 each) and are said to last about the same as a chain. I guess not having to lube the system at all would be great, but other than that, what do you gain?

I'd like to correct my misinformation here. The belts cost about $60, which is probably a great savings over chains given that Co-Motion says they'll last 10 times longer than chains (although that's probably wishful thinking... even 5 times longer would be pretty amazing). The cogs and rings are expensive (~$150 each, and for a tandem you'd need 4) but they'll probably last forever.

Thanks for the reply!



Are you running 700c? Specifically, what rims are you using?Yes, 700c. On the rear wheel we're running a 36H Velocity Deep V:
http://www.velocityusa.com/default.asp?contentID=583
and on the front an Aerohead:
http://www.velocityusa.com/default.asp?contentID=581
though we'll change to the Deep V in front when we wear out the brake track on the Aerohead. The Aerohead has been a little more fiddly and may get some of its lighter weight through a thinner brake track. Seems to wear out more quickly, anyway.

What I'm saying about rim section is that as you lower the spoke count, you want a stiffer rim so that the contact patch doesn't substantially reduce the spoke preload by flexing upwards, and so you also don't have little sections of the rim with substantially higher loads due to rim flex. Wheel dynamics are pretty complicated. And of course the width of your rim will depend on the tire size you intend to run on it. Our rims are happy with 25c-28c tires. The 28c were fine for touring at 120 lbs. For wider tires, you'll want a wider rim.

I think CoMo is rating belt life very conservatively, simply because no one has worn one out yet. Sort of like rating a Rohloff hub life. It's internal friction that wears a chain, after all, not the friction between the rollers and the chainring. Belts don't have internal friction.

Why would you need a bigger gear range than what the Rohloff already offers you, which is more than 500%? I could see the point in using half-step gearing up front (e.g., 42 & 44 tooth chainrings) so that the gaps between the Rohloff gears are halved, but then you still need a front derailleur and a chain tensioner / rear derailleur, which kinda defeats the point of the IGH.
FWIW: we need a bigger range. We run and actually use the full range of a 48/36/22 crankset and 11-34 cassette, which is over 600%. A Rohloff doesn't offer a range this big.