positron

HAHAHA fair enough...

Miles2go

HardyWeinberg

Thanks for the link. That is one bad study though.

staehpj1

I have to question that one and whether you find it irrelevant or tedious is at least equally moot. It isn't necessary to own something to have a valid opinion of it. It is quite possible to know a lot about how suitable something is for a given purpose without owning it. I don't have to own a unicycle to know that it isn't suitable for the type of touring I want to do. Someone else may happily tour on one, but the fact that I don't doesn't make my opinion irrelevant.

I am sure you wouldn't be guilty of the same thing and have never expressed an opinion on something you didn't own.

Oh wait you just did, or was that an attempt at humor?

positron

Yeah, we covered that three posts up, but cheers! Hey, everyone is human, all I am saying is that one doesn't really have any evidence-based input to the benefits or detriments of a Rohloff drivetrain, unless one has had the chance to use it. From those people that have owned or used a Rohloff, there is a dramatic consensus of appreciation for the system. The detractors are mainly people that choose to not buy-in. Fine.

Additionally, they are geared towards more off-road type of riding, which you certainly didnt encounter on your 72-day ACA Transam. Also fine. I prefer to tour offroad, for me the rohloff is a great advancement. yabba-dabba-do amigo.

skookum

It wouldn't be the internet if we couldn't argue with somebody based on pure opinion without any evidence.

positron

YOu got me thinking:

And, in the spirit of good-natured rubbing, I would have to point out that this statement is demonstrably false! This guy https://www.onewheel.org/ did a 9,136 mile TransAm 50-state tour on a unicycle. Correct me if I am wrong, but an epic trans-america tour is the type of touring you do (I think you've mentioned that around here once or twice...)

Incidentally:

https://induni.adventureunicyclist.com/links.html

https://www.unicycle.co.nz/View.php?a...ringWellington

https://www.unicycle.com/educationart...?CatID=4&ID=34

https://www.aut.unitours.org/Riders.htm


So, like the Rohloff, don't knock it till you try it!

peace

gearbob

Here are a few action photos of my bike during a 400 mile unsupported trip in northern MN during the fall of 2008. The goal of this trip was to ride lots of backroad gravel. The Rohloff was flawless and shifts were always consistent.

I can easily shift under most situations so long as my hand is near the shifter. I taunt my friends with quick gear changes just as they are bogged down due to challenging hills, sudden loose sand/gravel, etc. and their derailleur rig grinds the chain and cannot execute a shift due to slow chain speeds. This happens a fair amount during my trips (both the taunting and the easy shifting!)

I'm very happy with how my bike is set up for this sort of work. The Cinelli Spinaci are ugly but sure are handy when it's hammer time or buffeting a big headwind for hours at a time.

I did replace the dual dynamo headlights (Schmidt E6 primary & B&M D'Lumotec) with a Schmidt Edelux. If you like Rohloffs, you may be a candidate for a sweet dynamo lighting setup, too. But that's another topic.

positron

Thats what I have on the front end (SON/Edelux) sweeeeeet ride man. Sure do love that candy apple red.

staehpj1

gosmsgo

Unfortunately some of this boils down to money as well.

For some of us it might take a year to save up enough money to buy a rohloff. Some on here might have 15,000 a month of DISPOSABLE income.

If a Rohloff takes a year to pay for or a week well that would come into play in how much you think you need one.

It was about 3 weeks worth of savings for me. My buddy saved for two years to buy his entire bike which costs the same as my Rohloff. Do I expect him to save for another two years to buy a hub?

rhm

It is! Thank you for posting.

That is fascinating, even surprising; it would never have occurred to me to use the high gears so much. When on my commuter bikes (with Nexus 8 and Sturmey Archer 8 hubs) I always shift to 1st gear (around 28 gear inches) every time I stop, upshifting when my cadence reaches 110 - 120 rpm, so I don't usually get above 6th gear or so. If I had my Rohloff geared like yours, I would mostly use gears 4-8, and reach gear 11 rather rarely. I guess I have to gear mine quite a bit lower, then?

gearbob

rhm - This moves off topic a bit, but to respond about selecting your Nexus (or Alfine) cog and chainring...

For example, consider the Nexus Inter-8 gear ratio table on the following web page:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/shimano-nexus.html

The table says gear 5 is 1:1 for the Nexus Inter-8. Assuming this table is correct and that 1:1 is the most efficient for your hub, then target gear 5 as the "sweet spot" gear for the best overall drivetrain efficiency.

Let's say you ride fixed or single speed on another commuter bike with the same wheel size, and you have already determined the best all around cog & chainring combination for that bike, e.g. 42x16. That's the cog & chainring RATIO you might want on your Nexus. (42/16=2.63)

If the Nexus came with a 19 cog, then you'd need a 50 tooth ring to make gear 5 the same overall gear as the fixed/single example above. (50/19=2.63)

Obviously, if you still need lower or taller gears, then you will need to change cog & chainring sizes to a ratio that better meets your overall min/max gearing needs. Same holds true for the Rohloff. In the end, it's a compromise but it is worth paying attention to these details.

The cogs for the Nexus hubs are cheap so maybe you can swap out the 19 cog to one with fewer teeth and use a smaller chainring you might already have laying around.

PS - If you like gear hubs, check out this web site:
https://hubstripping.wordpress.com/

gosmsgo

I have forgotten my chainring and cog size so if anyone is curious, ask and I will count them.

I set it up to where I can go 4.5 mph to about 29 mph with a good decent cadence.....say 85-95 rpm....dont remember exactly.

I spent a couple of days thinking about this before making up my mind. My gearing is lower than Rohloff will warranty for but I knew it would never be an issue. Rohloff supposedly set that limit for two world class athletes on a tandem.

I use the lowest gear almost everyday and I've only found myself in 14 searching for a mythical 15 a couple of times. Just spin even faster and I was fine.

RalphMalph

I have biked my whole life. Up until 5-6 years ago I never spent more than 25 bucks on a bike (used at the local sheriffs youth ranch). My favorite was an old sovereign road bike (had 3 of them) with friction stem shifters.

The bike was nearly maintenance free. I rode them to work, school, etc... I loved it. Hop on and pedal. No worries.

Then I decided to invest in more expensive bikes. A mountain bike with rapid fire and a road bike with brifters.

I was shocked at all of the tinkering I had to constantly do with the derailleurs and brakes. It was all new to me and every upgrade the new bikes had, seemed to be a waste when I considered the amount of time saved by indexed shifting and linear brakes vs. the frustration and time lost on constant adjusting.

I shelved these new and improved pieces of crap and hoped back on the old faithful.

Eventually, I mounted bar end shifters on the stem via improvised device, and I just leave the rear in friction mode all the time, and I never have to adjust.

I can now, once again, just hop on my darn bike, pedal, and propel myself toward my destination just like I did on the old $25 hoopty.




In short: I love the fact that advances are being made in cycle shifting, and applaud the companies for doing so, but for me, friction shifting is the best shifting device on the market for casual and commuting.

bwgride

I agree with this practice. I ran indexed shifters for several years, then about two years ago I did not want to spend time adjusting alignment issues one day and moved my rear derailleur to friction shifting and I have not moved it back since. I especially like the combination of Shimano bar-end shifters mounted on Paul's thumbies because that combination is nearly the same as older Shimano DX thumb shifters (which I wish Shimano would reintroduce). Friction shifting just works well.

AlanK

Very interesting thread. I'm a newbie to Rohloff hubs, as such my knowledge is cursory. They do seem interesting and here are my questions and thoughts:

Many have mentioned that the lower gears (1-5) are less efficient than on a derailleur bike even after the Rohloff is broken-in: Is this loss of efficiency significant and noticeable compared to a derailleur system?

The Rohloff hub is sort of ironic because it's more complicated than a derailleur drive-train, yet this complexity enables the rest of the bike to be more simple, especially the wheels.

Again, a very interesting discussion. Like other posters I'd be a little hesitant about getting a Rohloff hub because the initial cost is significantly higher, but if it offers the kind of low-maintenance longevity Rohloff advocates argue that it does, it's probably worth it.

I ride almost every day and had similar problems with STI shifters and a low-end (Sora) drive-train. I've since switched to a bar-ends with an LX/Deore drive-train and have almost no problems. The only regular maintenance I do is replace the chain twice yearly, and replace the shifter cables every 1-2 years. Seriously, I haven't had to do anything else with my drive-train in over 2 years.

That said, I won't say my derailleur drive-train is completely flawless; occasionally the rear derailleur won't shift into gear immediately, but a micro-adjustment to the shifter fixes it. That's why I prefer bar-ends; because they're simpler and in mechanical terms simpler is almost always better.

bokes

I was going to post to this thread, but forgot until now, hope it's not too late!

I have about 5k miles on my Rohloff, here's a few thoughts, some of which I haven't read elsewhere:
I like the Rohloff the most in the hills or when offroad on constantly changing slopes (grades). Since there's no front derailleur, you don't have to pay as much attention to shifting. You don't have to constantly think about if you should shift the front, or the rear, or both at the same time. Other hubs and 1x9s share this simplicity, but only Rohloff has the gear range needed for touring (for most of us). I think in a way this taps into a feeling that singlespeeders have. With less focus on shifting, you can turn a little part of your brain off and just enjoy the ride.

Another huge advantage is it's faster shifting. Imagine you're going uphill and realize you're in too high a gear. With the Rohloff you can downshift 2 or 3 gears quickly and without needing to pedal, so you don't lose momentum and you ride on without stopping. Often with a derailleur you have to stop, lift the rear wheel, turn the crank once to get in the right gear before starting again.

Another common situation, you're riding off road, and you come to a large 'dip' or whatever it's called, when you have a short, steep downhill, immediately followed by a steep uphill. With a derailleur, you say, we'll, I won't have time to shift at the bottom, so I might as well get in a low gear now and coast down.
With the Rohloff, you can pedal downhill in a high gear, downshift 10 gears in 1/2 a second, and keep pedaling as you turn uphill. Derailleurs seem to have a delay while the chain is rattling and searching for the cog's teeth before you get a solid connection. The Rohloff doesn't have this delay, it's fantastic, you can almost always get in the right gear without stopping. You really have to try one to see what I mean.

I also enjoy riding a Rohloff in the rain. I like the feeling of knowing that I won't have to clean cogs or a derailleur afterwards. I hate adjusting derailleurs, altho I admit this convenience is probably overblown. I have derailleurs on my road bike and haven't adjusted them in over a year.

So am I a Rohloff coolaid drinker? I don't think so, I will even admit that if you're riding on the road in dry weather, and if it isn't too hilly (ie your in the same chainring most of the time), then I like the light weight of derailleurs more. But since my favorite touring is in mountains and offroad, the Rohloff has a secure home on my touring/mtn bike.

I do dislike the noise in gear 7. Most of the time the wind alleviates it and panniers help block the noise as well, but on a windless day, this gear sounds like an annoying windup toy. In this situation I often upshift and stand, or downshift to 6 and slow down.
Gears 1-6 used to make some noise, but not anymore. After 5k miles, other than gear 7, I can hear a faint noise in 2 other gears, and the rest are as silent as a fart. Overall the noise is not a significant factor for me.

I keep hearing "Rohloff is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist". I'm sure the horse and buggy wasn't a problem when cars appeared! ok ok I'm exaggerating, but I think the Rohloff is becoming more popular not because derailleurs have a problem, but in some kinds of riding the Rohloff offers some real advantages and IMO has made cycling more fun

AlanK

Exactly, and the same can be argued for many other technological developments - in most cases there are trade offs. The only major disadvantage the Rohloff has compared to derailluers is price, and considering it now runs about $1K US it's a pretty significant disadvantage. [It's not like the discussion of disc brakes where there are significant trade-offs for higher performance.]

Some have argued that Rohloff's exceptional long-term reliablity will eventually make up this $ difference, but I'm not convinced that's true. A quality derailluer system lasts most normal riders (commuters, recreational riders, road tourers, etc.) many, many years. [My deore/lx drivetrain is still going strong after 4 years of almost daily riding.] For more demanding types of riding like expedition touring the Rohloff might be a worthwhile expense for it's durability and ultra low-maintenance. For most of us the expense isn't justified.

I think much of this is just technophilia - obsession with the latest, newest technology; something many of us (myself included) are guilty of. It's also entirely possible the Rohloff will become dated in the next few years. Right now Rohloff seems better than the Nuvinci CVT hub, but if Fallbrook can shave 1-2kg and expand the range it would probably be the superior technology.

vik 

LMAO...I put a Rohloff on a non-Rohloff specific bike and liked it so much that I got a second in a Rohloff specific frame.

- a Rohloff costs a lot to start with, but the $/km cost is no higher than a decent set of derailleur equipment in the long run.

- I have not experienced any Rohloff induced inefficiency on my Rohloff bikes and I swap back forth with derailleur bikes. Experimental data I've seen puts the range off losses in a Rohloff at about the same as a derailleur bike and that was with everything clean and neat - not covered in mud/dirt. This is not to say there is no difference under any circumstances. However, I certainly haven't noticed anything from the saddle under a wide variety of riding/touring conditions making me think I am at any disadvantage on my Rohloff bikes. Keep in mind 1) I don't race my Rohloff bikes 2) I don't have a lab to measure drivetrain efficiency.



- I rode for days on a hellishly muddy dirt road tour with my Rohloff bike. I didn't even look at the chain once or lube it or give it a second thought. The bike shifted as good on the first day as the last and gave me no problems.



- Mounting a Rohloff on a standard frame is not a problem I've done it. There are many torque control options that don't require the long torque arm. I've got a Rohloff shifter on a drop bar bike and have multiple mounting options on drop bars depending on user preference. A Rohloff chain tensioner is much much more beefy than a derailleur so not nearly as likely to be damaged. The result is a low maintenance, tough, easy to use drivetrain.

- I'd love to see your stats on Rohloff's breaking down on tour - that doesn't jive with the extensive reading I've done or my own experience. A properly broken in Rohloff is many many times less likely to have any issues than a derailleur bike - both annoying poor shifting and complete failures. Without trying I can think of 4 sources of Rohloff parts that will ship internationally. Given the low likelihood of a failure that's good enough for me. If you are touring somewhere outside the developed world the chance you are going to get suitable replacement derailleur gear locally is low. My preference is to have a setup that's hard to break and requires little maintenance even under difficult conditions and accept the very small probability of needing outside support.

- let's be clear running a derailleur touring bike does not make you immune from a complete drivetrain failure that would require outside support. There are lots of places that there are no buses and in 4hrs you may well not have a suitable replacement part in your hand. I can get Rohloff parts overnighted to me anywhere in North America easily and in remote spots on the planet you won't get Rohloff or decent derailleur gear. I'd just as soon not break down in the first place.

- I could never turn my back on my derailleur equipped LHT because 1) it's a nice bike 2) if it's stolen in rural Mexico I'm not getting a replacement and my tour is over.

- if someone does steal my Rohloff bike I'd been in the same situation as if I had my LHT with derailleurs stolen in rural Mexico. I'd fly home, get my insurance money and buy a new bike.

I used to be doubtful of the value and utility of a Rohloff....I was a skeptic. However, I decided to put my money where my mouth is and try one - figuring it could be sold at a small loss if I didn't like it. I liked it so much I got a second. I ride a LHT with derailleurs as well so I can compare back and forth. If I had to give up a bike it would be the one with derailleurs.

My experience is common..a rider will try a Rohloff and suddenly they have a second, their wife gets one and their friends get 'em. I lent my Rohloff bike to a friend and he is now set on a Rohloff touring bike.

I certainly don't go around dissing derailleurs...they work and the upfront cost is lower for sure. However, to put down a Rohloff with zero data and no experience is silly. There are just too many Rohloff repeat customers and Rohloffs used on tour to deny they work well and intelligent/experienced people are choosing them over derailleurs.

I don't go around trying to convince people Rohloff's are the best thing since sliced bread. I just ride my bikes and get on with life...however...I do feel compelled to correct Rohloff mis-information.

penexpers

Actually even with the weight difference, I think the Nuvinci CVT hub is superior to the Rohloff speedhub(disclaimer: I own the Nuvinci but not the Rohloff). But really though, the Nuvinci is completely silent, doesn't suffer from any gear slippage issues and is 100% reliable when shifting. Added to that, the fact that it's built very well (I'm loathe to use the phrase "bombproof") and I really can't see how anything could break on it.

vik 

Good point Alan...I put a Shimano Alfine IGH on my Surly Pugsley because I didn't need the gear range of a Rohloff and can't afford a Rohloff on every bike I own. The Alfine was the right choice for that bike.

As with any bike component you need to evaluate it in light of the anticipated use. You don't need a 6"+ full-suspension MTB to ride a dirt track. You don't need 42H rims and tandem hubs if you are 150lbs and only ride on nicely paved roads.

The Rohloff is just one option for bike gearing. Saying it's a totally unnecessary solution in search of a problem is as silly as saying everyone needs one.

HardyWeinberg

I'm not a rohloff detractor but I do attempt to be a statistician from time to time and I wonder how much of the speedhub's successful track record is due to low sample size. The Concord was the safest airplane model by crash percentage for decades until it became the most hazardous airplane model by crash percentage after one bad day.

(I still aspire to save up for one but I've got several other 4 figure goals prioritized ahead of it...)

ps-> I have to suspect the straight chainline of the gearhub permits a certain slackening in other maintenance activities like cleaning and lubing that would futz up a derailer system sooner.

AlanK

Not to mention that it's pretty reasonably priced at $400 USD. I'll probably be in the market for a new bike in a year or two (right now I can't justify one since my current rig suits my needs just fine). When the time arrives I'll look at the Nuvinci.

While there's lots to love about the CVT I still think the weight is a problem for a general commuting rig. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a weight-weenie or anything, but the CVT is heavy. I've ridden a friend's CVT bike and the rear-end drag is noticeable. While he's happy with it overall, he says the limited range is problematic with some of the hills we have here.

I'm hopeful Fallbrook will eventually come out with one that's just a bit lighter with a little more range, even if it isn't quite as 'bomb-proof'. Really, for a standard (non-motorized) bike, the current CVT is way beyond durable enough.