I keep thinking that I should build myself an IGH bike. Maybe even convert one of my recumbents to IGH. A couple of things are holding me back:

1. Inertia. I have a lot of experience with derailleur systems, I'm pretty good with them, and I don't have any objection to them. Every time that I starting thinking about IGH I ask myself what I have to gain and I don't have an answer.
2. I've had some bad experiences fixing flat tires on IGH bikes. It feels to me like converting a 5 or 10 minute roadside task into a 30 minute shop job.

I'm asking on 50+ because I'd like to hear 50+-type answers.

Hopefully Dan Burkhart will see this post, he is the big time IGH guy in our forum. Best of luck, if you decide to get into the project. The 10 speed IGH hubs out are intriguing, but they are so heavy right now.

Bill

I have Rohloff on an expedition touring bike. It's a superb bit of equipment, absolutely bulletproof as far as I can see, zero maintenance apart from an oil change every 5000 km or so - takes 10 minutes - and 14 gears, evenly spaced with 13% increments between them to provide a big range. The weight penalty is insignificant in the context in which I'm using it, and isn't that huge anyway when you net off the couple of chainrings and 10-speed cassette that it replaces. Plus your wallet will be a lot lighter, it's seriously expensive.

It has disadvantages, yes. As you say, it's a bit less convenient when repairing a puncture. More significant, for me, is that you can't just swap out the wheel (unless you have two Rohloffs, of course) so for example if I wanted to put slicks on the bike that would be a bit of a pain.

But the big question is, as you say, what have you to gain? In my case I bought it for a two-month tour on which I was going to be out of reach of bike shops for extended periods. I wanted virtual indestructibility. I'd use it on a year-round commuter for similar reasons. And no doubt it's an admirable piece of engineering, if that floats your boat. But for ordinary purposes I'd say it's advantages over a derailleur system come at too high a price. The Shimano alternatives are cheaper, of course, but from what I read they lack the Rohloff's legendary durability, and don't have the range.

^^^This right here says it for me.

I've toyed with the idea of setting up an IGH, mainly for the novelty factor, and to have something different. The drop in efficiency compared to a derailer system, along with no benefits that matter to me has kept me away. It is fun to look at the IGH bikes of others though!

I have an IGH on my folder, Shimano Nexus 8-spd and it works flawlessly too! Yes, changing flat you do have to disconnect the gear change cable and they re-connect it when you're finished, but the way it's set up it's pretty quick release so not a hassle at all.

The reason I like it for the folder is that it's overall cleaner than a derailluer system though mine still uses a chain rather than a belt, which would be even cleaner.

Rick / OCRR

Your objections to an IGH are well founded. Yes, it's more difficult to change a flat (although really it's difficult getting the wheel back on correctly. Taking it off is relatively easy.) The main annoyance is having to get the chain tension right. If it's not exactly the same as it was before you took it off, the shifting will also need adjusted (not more than a turn or two of a barrel adjuster though.) That, however, is one of the advantages of the IGH. Extremely easy to adjust gears. For my shimano nexus 8, I put it in 4th gear and twist the barrel adjuster 'till the lines (on the hub) line up perfectly. I often do it while I'm riding (if I need to.) Another advantage is less chain/belt maintenance. As bad as this sounds, I haven't lubed my chain in a few months. I also haven't heard my chain in any of that time either. Not having to deal with shifting or a derailleur is very nice for the chain.

As for weight, I don't really notice it. The bike rides great when it's unloaded. Loaded it's heavy, so it doesn't matter.

For me, using an IGH is a matter of "what do you NEED it for." I commute year round, and often in bad conditions. I wanted a low maintenance drivetrain that wouldn't freeze in snow and sub zero temperatures. That's why I got an IGH. Otherwise a derailleur works just fine.

The Rohloff's gears are about twice as far apart as my preferred 6 to 7 percent ratiometric progression, but one could solve that with a derailleur and either two cogs in back (if a longer axle is available or if two cogs will fit the stock axle) or two chainrings up front. Yes, I like hybrid transmissions, which some folks say have the worst of both worlds, but others claim they offer the best of both worlds.

Historically, weather had everything to do with IGH development, with IGH having been immensely popular in the UK, versus derailleurs on the continent.

I went through my IGH phase. All 4 kids got IGH (nexus-7) set ups and my wife got a nexus-8. I briefly tried a nexus-7 touring set up --and even added two front chainrings to increase the range. They're all gone except my wife's nexus-8 and my nexus-4 commuter. I disliked the touring setup immensely. Too heavy for what I got out of it, and way too inconvenient for flat fixes.

As above, I do like the nexus-4 IGH on my commuter, and I'm building a new one. Reliable so far through all weather and temperatures. But that's it. (except I gave all the nexus-7 builds to my neighbors who love their convenience, --except they come back to me for flat fixes and maintenance). I also built up two older schwinn twinn tandems with leftover nexus-7's. That seemed to be a great setup

There are 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 speed plus CVT IGH hubs available.

The standard science for this starts on page three here (pdf).

As mechanical devices, broken in and properly lubricated three speed hubs are the most efficient poly-speed bicycle drivetrains across all their gears. However, human muscles also operate on a efficiency/speed curve, and the large gear steps of a three speed drivetrain drive the overall machine+human efficiency down.

Derailleur drive trains have some interesting inefficiencies, most of which are unknown to cyclists even in 2016.

The Rohloff offers rather tighter ratios at the bottom end than a typical derailleur setup where people are using big cassettes to give themselves climbing gears. i agree that the steps are rather bigger than the ideal in the middle range.

I'm not sure this true, actually. SA 3-speeds were indeed hugely popular in the UK, partly I suspect because it was a British company spawned by Raleigh, which was easily the biggest bicycle maker at the time. I don't think weather had much to do with it, though. Winter riding conditions in the UK are far less demanding than in central and northern continental Europe.

So says Frank Berto in his 'Dancing Chain' book. In reality, one could buy IGH equipped cycles by the early 1880s and by the time derailleur drive trains were developed enough in France to be considered a robust, reliable system for general use (late 1920s), racers and cycle tourists in Germany and Great Britain had been riding 2, 3 and four speed IGHs - that were in some respects better than the ones you can buy today - for a quarter century.

Really interesting, thanks. I'd always been sceptical of the "derailleurs are more efficient" assertions but had no idea of the facts.

I've been thinking of setting up a 3 speed for a winter commuter. A single speed would be ideal but I have a few climbs to deal with on the way to work.

I also have a surly 1 x 1 frame just sort of lying around; I've been thinking I need to turn it into a 1 x 3 and commute on it.

I read about the San Jos8 that Sheldon built and built my own version using a Fuji Royale frame. Later I swapped the setup over to a Schwinn Premis because the geometry of the frame was better for me. It's a Nexus 8 Red Band. I've ridden Imperial and Metric centuries with it. No complaints at all. I know a couple who built a recumbent with something like 81 speeds - a triple up front, a 3 speed IGH, and a 9 speed cassette. Here's a post with a couple of pictures I did back in 2006 when I was building it: https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...e-project.html

I don't mean to mislead anyone. Different designs of IGH obviously have different efficiencies, and some of the current models that run in grease and double and triple compound to achieve their wide-spread ratios can be relatively draggy.

With just three speeds, there's of course a compromise between the overall spread and the gear step size. The overall spread/gear step size of today's basic SRAM, Shimano and Sturmey-Archer three speeds is very nearly the same and represents the compromise that was settled on around one hundred years ago. Here's a suggestion from New Departure back in the early 1950s about how to set up a three speed:

This looks useful but it is too small to read; do you have a link to a site with this info? Thank you.

On an old school Sturmey hub where the cable stop is attached to the frame, perhaps. Modern IGHs are equipped with quick release shift cables and the cable stop is typically a small sheet metal bracket attached to the hub. Chain tension (wheel placement) can be some where between 'chain falls off' and 'stresses other components'.

Typically, yes. However in mine the cable housing is very short because the weld on cable stop is only 3.5 inches away from the cable stop for the hub itself. If I had a longer cable housing, it'd work as you say. On a bike built for a derailleur, I have a feeling you'll often run into this problem. (Yes yes yes there are ways to fix it I know. But they're ugly. )

Here's some fun history for you:


Derailleur and IGH Competition in the 1930s

1937 will be remembered by gear-head cycle historians as the summer the derailleur made a belated return to the Tour de France after a 25-year absence. While derailleurs ruled in France, across the Channel there was a completely different type of multi-gearing system that had been in use for over 50 years. These two approaches to multi-gearing had a unique meeting in the same competitions under the same rules just before WWII, with results that will surprise modern riders.

Unlike France, in the UK there was little massed start racing in those days. Cycle sport was by-and-large time trialing and point-to-point records, and because of its length and variation of terrain and weather, the Land’s End to John O’Groats record was the ne plus ultra event. Cyclists began tackling the big ride in the 1880s, and the Road Record Association was formed in 1888 to lay down rules for comparison and to document results. The RRA’s rules contained little in the way of equipment limitations.

Fast-forward to the 1930s and a dynamic time in British cycling. Time/distance and point-to-point records, long the domain of athletic competition, proved to be an excellent vehicle for commercial promotion. The derailleur had been re-introduced to Great Britain after spending some 30 years exiled in France, and was challenging the ubiquitous Sturmey-Archer internal-gear hub for the enthusiasts’ market. Derailleur importers, utilizing the services of some of the best Commonwealth riders, began to have records set using their equipment. When world-famous Australian Hubert “Oppy” Opperman took the End-to-End record using a four-speed Cyclo derailleur in 1935 it was the final straw for the men in Nottingham.

Jared Diamond wrote about having just the right amount of competition for progress. Sturmey-Archer had experienced less-than optimum competition since the Great War, and these imported derailleurs prompted them to begin to innovate for the first time in over a decade. It also prompted parent company Raleigh to assemble a team of top British cyclists to test, prove – and market - these innovations on the road.

In 1936 Raleigh retained Charlie Holland, who had ridden on the U.K. Olympic team in Los Angeles and Berlin, to ride for them. They were rewarded when he won the inaugural massed start Isle of Man International Road Race on a Raleigh bike with Sturmey-Archer gears. In 1937 Holland moved on to the continent and was the first British rider in the Tour de France (using that year’s famous derailleurs, and with a result of DNF-mechanical). Back home, the torch was passed to Sid Ferris.

Sid Ferris came from a cycling family. His brother, H.E.G. “Harry” Ferris, set a number of time/distance records on three wheel cycles and later ran a bespoke cycle shop offering silver brazed frames. Sibling Sid didn’t really look the part of a lean and hard cycle racer; he had a big smile and, oddly for a speed and distance man, rather boyish cheeks. On the bike, period photos show Sid arched over his Lauterwasser bars somewhat asymmetrically, with his head turned to the left and his right shoulder a bit low. He had only one eye, and wore an eye patch on the left.

Lean and hard he proved to be, however, and while some of Raleigh’s other long distance men had used a medium range or even a wide range hub, Sid rode across the hills, moors and highlands using S-A’s new ultra-narrow range (+7.2%, -6.8%) AR three-speed. During the long summer days of 1937 he toppled all the RRA’s premier records recently set on derailleur machines: Edinburgh-London, 24hrs, 1000 miles. That July he rode the 870 miles from Land’s End to John O’Groats in 54 ˝ hours*, besting Oppy’s mark by two and a half hours and setting a record that would stand for a remarkable 21 more years.

While other British riders would continue to race time trials and set time/distance records using internal-gear hubs into the 1960s, Ferris’ ride would be the last time a rider using Sturmey-Archer gears would lower the End-to-End record. With WWII, the curtain came down on Sturmey-Archer’s most impressive period of innovation, and their failure afterwards to keep pace with the ever-evolving derailleur would result in history being rewritten and the remarkable competition of the 1930s to be forgotten. Of all the records set using that company’s hub gears in the 1930s only Tommy Godwin’s year mileage total (75,056 miles on a Raleigh bicycle with S-A AF hub, 1939, besting Ossie Nicholson’s 62,657 miles on a Cyclo derailleur equipped Malvern Star, 1937) has never been bettered by a rider using derailleur gearing.

*16.0mph average. For reference, Hubert Opperman won the 726 mile 1931 Paris-Brest-Paris at a 14.7mph average.

I've got an IGH wheel (7 speed Shimano, I think), I bought most of the extra bits to mount it to a bike but am missing one particular washer that helps the shifting function work, and that missing particular washer is no longer available. So the project sits, waiting for an appropriate frame to mount it to, and waiting for that particular specific washer to either be found or waiting until I get the patience and perseverance to fabricate or carve one of my own. But then I wonder if it will be worth the hassle of all of that, then I just give up on the idea and put the bits and pieces back into some random box or tub or bin down in the basement and hang the wheel/hub assembly back up on a hook or lean it against a wall in a dark corner and forget about it for another year or three. It was going to be a winter project commuter bike when I first came across the wheel/hub assembly at the LBS clearance sale, so I guess it really isn't worth the hassle and effort to finish said project all due to that one particular missing special washer.

So, in answer to the question "what I have to gain", my answer is not much apart from the pseudo-simplicity of maintenance and being seemingly easier to keep clean and for the novelty of it. Breaking it down to change/fix a flat is a fairly significant consideration to some, others just accept it and work with the situation, and to me it varies depending upon the day.

YMMV

Have 2 Rohloffs* and a Brompton with a BSR, (the AW3 made for the Brompton company)
with a Mountain drive 2 speed planetary Gear box crank . Chain does not shift..

Some similarity . Rohloff is 3_3speeds** and a Low range gear to use all 7 gears a second time
Mountain drive is using the 1 3 speed a second time .

*of the 2, The one in the Bike Friday with 20" wheels Is better able to be geared Lower , because of the smaller wheel size.

same 16t hub cog same gear range 26" wheel 38t chainring; 20" wheel 53t chainring.

** 3 x 3 speeds is 9 but 2 of them are redundant 2nd gears , leaving just one of the 3 , the 11th..( 4th, in low range)

I'm building an all-weather bike around the Sturmey Archer X-RD3 & X-FDD hubs. Subscribe to the new winter bike thread for periodic updates on the project if you're interested in a slightly <50 point of view .

Oh man! Now you've done it.

My Rans Rocket has 20" wheels and is my Katy Trail bike. The Katy is flat but I have to climb a significant hill to get from the trail home so a low-ish gear is a must. Also, since most of my riding is on the trail, there are no steel belted radial wires so fewer flat tires to contend with. The Rohloff hub however, even if I can get one at wholesale cost, would roughly triple my investment in that bike. Vertical dropouts too so I'd have that to contend with.

Don't think that it's going to happen.