Originally Posted by cudak888
Those theories of internal hubs having a lower efficency may have their mathimatical points, but I highly doubt whether the effecency difference, in practice, will ever be noticed by the rider.
Um... 10% is a fairly large difference in efficiency. When my chain gets dirty, and then I clean it, I find the difference in pedaling power on my commute to be noticeable. Not large, but noticeable. And I don't let my chain go more than a month or so without cleaning, less if the weather's bad.
Originally Posted by cudak888
And you don't seem to realize that although the initial cost of an internal hub setup may exceed that of a derailer setup, history has shown that there are internally-geared hubs out there (most notably, of course, the Sturmey AW) that have currently logged enough miles - without major parts replacement - to easily wear out 10 to 15+ sets of $hitmano's current Hyperbribe drivetrains.
Why the crude mockery of Shimano? I agree that some of their stuff is overpriced, and some of their ideas are bad... but they have been responsible for many innovations: ramped cogs (e.g. hyperglide) are probably the best improvement in derailer gearing since the slant-parallelogram rear derailer. Ramped cogs make a far greater difference than indexing as far as ease of shifting, in my opinion.
Certainly internally-geared hubs can last a long time, much longer than cassettes which typically last 1000-5000 miles, and derailers which might last 10000-20000 miles if you take good care. I don't dispute that. Internal gearing has undeniable advantages. I'm talking about a tradeoff here, that's why I mentioned its DISadvantages.
Originally Posted by cudak888
As for weight, since internal hubs have not been applied to race use since the mid '50s (except for the fantastic Rohloff piece), lighter ones have not been developed, but that is NOT to say that a lightweight, internally-geared hub cannot be developed.
I do have quite a few AW spare parts on hand - perhaps I'll try my hand at adding a little "drillium" to the innards of one to see how light I can get it. That, plus an alloy SA hub shell will probably weigh less then a current drivetrain group for a road machine.
Well, it's true that internal gearing has not been the subject of as much optimization as derailer gearing recently. It's not just a matter of weight, but efficiency as well I would add. I'd be interested in how much improvement in weight could be made without sacrificing the long life!
Take the weight of a Rohloff hub + one cog + single crank, and compare it to the weight of an XTR freehub, XTR derailers, XTR cassette, and XTR triple crankset. I'm pretty sure that XTR still comes out ahead. Plus, the XTR setup will cost you about $800 (mostly the crank), while Rohloff will be around $1000. If you're willing to "settle" for XT--which is more durable I believe, though a bit heavier--you'll can pay maybe $400-500.
Of course, if you're considering Rohloff for your MTB, you're likely to be an elite racer, and neither cost nor longevity will be a significant issue, so I'd guess that it's close to a tie between XTR and Rohloff. In terms of road bikes, or cross-country MTB bikes at a lower price point, I don't see anything that really competes with derailer gearing. Not to say that it won't change with more innovation and higher-volume internal-geared hub production, just that I don't see it today...