mdilthey

I agree with you, but nothing is indestructible. Nothing is frictionless. Your beloved bike has 15,000 maintenance-free miles on it; do you trust that aged rolhoff with another 3,000, knowing that something in it's internals has rubbed the same way millions of times?

The peace of mind in a system you can visually check every day wins for me.

I'm interested in how others perceive each system, especially those who have ordered both.

cyccommute 

I don't have any experience with IGH but I don't see them as being any more durable than a derailer system nor are derailer systems all that delicate. The derailer systems on my touring bike, including the STI shifters, has 9000 miles on it, including 5 tours and I've never experienced any problems with it. My commuting bike has over 12,000 miles of summer and winter riding on a derailer system with STI and, again, has had zero issues. I have a mountain bike derailer system with over 5000 miles of hard off-road (including a few crashes) and winter commuting that is going strong as well. I've owned 35 derailer bikes total and can't really say that any one of them has every "failed". I had a shifter cable blowout once but that's the extent of my "troubles" and that could happen with any system that uses a shifter.

mdithey does make a cogent point, however, about IGH. I doubt that you could walk into Ride On Bikes in Lewiston, Idaho and get the parts needed to fix an IGH of any flavor if something when wrong. If I screwed up a derailer, I could walk into any shop from Ride On Bikes to Ride 'n' Slide Sports in Beckley, WV and walk out with something that will get me down the road.

Jaywalk3r

I've got the NuVinci, not the Rohloff, but the answer, if I had a Rohloff, is yes. Rohloff claims a life expectancy of over 100,000 km (62,000 miles). I'm not sure what the life expectancy of the NuVinci is.

And I prefer long term reliability over ease of repair. Everybody prioritizes differently.

Jaywalk3r

By any objective standard, an IGH is going to be more durable than a derailer system. It's the nature of having everything contained within the hub. It isn't exposed to dirt or abuse like a derailer system.

krobinson103

I agree. but I like to be able to fix my bike on the road. I've had a few times when I had a snapped cable, or a bent hanger and there was always a work around that would get me riding home. If an IGH dies on the road then I think you'd be stuck walking to the next town where you are likely to have to wait a few days for your parts.

nun

I like being able to see and fix my gears. I assume they get more abuse and wear than an internal gear system, but a derailleur system is hackable. If it does break I can go over to single speed and if I need a new hub they are easily, quickly and cheaply available at the next bike shop. Also, I've yet to have a serious issue with a derailleur system. So IGH might be fantastic, but IMHO they are overkill while a derailleur system is good enough.

Jaywalk3r

A broken shifter cable isn't a bigger deal with an IGH than with a derailer system. The bike can still be put in a preferred gear and ridden like a singlespeed, until you can get to the next bike shop to get another shifter cable. It won't leave you stranded. In some cases, you'll even be able to hop off the bike and easily change the gear manually if, for example, you go from flat to hilly terrain on the way to the shop (or home). The bent hanger is a risk unique to a derailer system. There's nothing analogous to worry about with an IGH.

Jaywalk3r

Here we'll have to agree to disagree. Compared to IGHs, I find derailer systems to be fragile and difficult to keep properly adjusted. Equally important is the derailer system's inability to change gears while stopped. I do too much urban riding, and my bike sees too much abuse to consider a derailer system to be good enough.

nun

Yes we'll have to disagree, but that's ok. I find derailleur systems perfectly fine on Boston's busy streets and don't mind cleaning and oiling my derailleurs or adjusting the cables every so often. I certainly like the ease of removing the rear wheel with a derailleur and as I usually ride a bike with 130mm drop outs big internal hubs would be difficult to fit and their weight is also a drawback for me.

mdilthey

This seems self-serving to me too. I ride bikes relentlessly in all weather, in all conditions, off-road, on-road, through rain and snow and ice and deserts and blizzards etc. etc. I'm not an outlier- loads of people do this. My Shimano XT long-cage derailleur needs adjustment less than once every six months (well, honestly, I can't remember anything but cleaning and a frame swap in the last two years), and I oil the chain about once a month depending on rain.

Derailleurs aren't a finicky, failed technology riddled with problems that the Rolhoff swooped in and saved. They're a reliable technology with a century of design, and can serve for a decade or more of good service with minutes of maintenance per week.

Honestly, you spend $X on your Rolhoff gadget and that's fine, and they'll last for several thousand miles and that's fine too. However, claiming your gadget is night-and-day better than derailleurs is a bit of a push, and completely ignoring the fact that these things DO FAIL for some people in remote areas, leaving them stranded or even ending a tour early, happens. It does.

It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's a worse situation than if your derailleur breaks, because a remote bike shop in South America has fifty derailleurs in stock.

Jaywalk3r

I haven't used any other IGH, but my NuVinci doesn't complicate wheel removal. The shifter cable utilizes a quick release, and wheel removal and installatin is quite simple. I have to wonder if any IGHs actually make wheel removal more difficult, or if they just appear to.

Jaywalk3r

Once a year is too often for my tastes. And I seriously doubt it would hold up unscathed to a year of spending 40-60 hours each week in overcrowded bike racks. That's a pretty abusive environment.

Yep. They've been around almost as long as internal-geared hubs. But more popular in the US (where any bike rider is an outlier of the general population) doesn't imply more reliable. There are some old IGHs that are still in use. And finicky is a perfect descriptor for derailers.

Yep. In the very unlikely scenario it fails, you'll have to wait a couple days for the Fed-Ex delivery to arrive. That's a very low probability event and a pretty small cost when it happens. I'll take that risk over suffering through derailer issues.

mdilthey

If you say so... I am in the same environment and have had no damage. I think you're the minority if people keep kicking in your derailleurs.

There's a big difference between a 3-speed cruiser IGH and a Rolhoff touring IGH. namely, the latter is extremely complex, and much more difficult to repair. In fact, I'd put your chances of a field IGH repair at near-zero unless you work for Rolhoff (or NuVinci, etc.) Someone with a dissenting story can chime in, but I've never heard it in my time. Ask yourself; can you field repair your IGH right now?

This is what it boils down to, which is good, because it likely means the argument is over. Derailleur "issues," which for me adds up to about an hour a year, if that, is the trade-off for something that is field-repairable and easily replaceable. Your IGH, despite working beautifully the majority of the time, despite having a low probability of failing, has an inherent flaw; in the event of that 1-in-a-million break, you're utterly shipwrecked.

In the UK or USA, maybe that's just an expensive fix and a 2-day wait for fed-ex. In a foreign country, that could mean hitch-hiking a week back to civilization and buying a plane ticket home.

That's why, for me, the ultimate touring gruppo isn't the cream of the crop of IGH super-drivetrains. It's something quickly fixed or replaced. My tour experience has shown me time and time again that NOTHING works exactly as planned. There are no guarantees.

krobinson103

I agree there. I don't do world tours, but even all night rides and 2-3 day tours always throw a curveball somewhere. Once we got a brokenb cable on a trike. Another time I lost hydrolic pressure on one brake. Fortunately my bottle of chain oil fixed the problem (had to flush the system later but hey - it worked!). Another time I crashed into a large pile of steel avoiding a particularly large dog. Bent the hanger and damaged the RD to the point it was only good as a chain tensioner.

I think simpler is better so I try and keep a few generations behind in technology. Chances are high I can find a 9 speed chain (even a 7 speed chain will work at a pinch) but, you need a fairly high end store to get an 11 speed chain. Equally a mechanical drive train is going to be easier to repair than Di2. I'd bet you average mom and pop store in out of the way places has no idea where to start on that system.

mdilthey

Yes, exactly.

A $4500 boutique bike has its place. Everyone wants a ferrari in their garage. When it comes to actual touring, make sure every part you put on the bike has a back-up plan. It'll save your tour someday.

Jaywalk3r

Not mine. I upgraded from derailers. The derailers of others I know, OTOH …

The early derailer systems were unlike what is available now, too. That's what happens after over a century of development. Who knew?

I'd put my chances of needing to field repair at near zero. I can't field repair my frame, either, but that doesn't prevent me from riding, because the chance of my frame failing is also slim.

Wrong. I have a singlespeed until the Fed-Ex shipment arrives. It's not exactly a catastrophe. There are far worse scenarios not involving my hub that are far more likely to occur than my hub failing, but I don't let those things keep me off the bike either.

If you want to use derailers, fine. It's your choice to make. But you're kidding yourself if you believe their popularity somehow makes them a superior choice. Choosing an IGH for its increased reliability is reasoning at least as valid.

mdilthey

IMO, there's a big difference between popularity and availability. My argument is that it's easy and inexpensive to completely replace, and that is a powerful asset against Murphy's law.

I think your frame example is weak. A bike frame is a single continuous piece, and barring the event of a serious crash, is very predictable in it's nature. No sign of corrosion? Your frame is fine- keep riding.

An IGH, on the other hand...



I really don't think a stronger argument can be made. A duplicity of moving parts, all interfacing, touching, and on a long enough timeline, wearing.

Do they fail often? No, I agree with you, probability is on your side. You will never make an argument to convince me it's the better choice for a serious expedition, though, because an expedition that is 100% halted by your hub isn't really acceptable to me.


All those "maybe" failures on your bike and my bike could happen and we ride anyways, but all my parts are at the LBS wherever I go and yours aren't. Address that, and you'll sway my opinion.

Jaywalk3r

Reliable equipment is also an excellent way to keep Mr. Murphy at Bay. I'm more of an ounce of prevention type person. You seem to be of the pound of cure school of thought. That's fine, too.

It would by no means halt a tour. It means I have a singlespeed until FedEx arrives. That's neither the end of the world nor the end of the tour.

I would much rather use parts less likely to fail to begin with. Hence, I don't use derailers. My Tubus racks are also not readily available in most LBSs, but they aren't likely to fail. I chose them for their reliability.

I have no interest in your opinion or what gear you choose. I've put much thought and consideration into my own needs, and have arrived at the well reasoned conclusion that derailers have too many shortcomings for them to be a good choice for me.

headloss 

Reliability... perhaps. Haven't seen any comparative data.
Durability... that's relative. Cassette cogs aren't the most durable things in the world, but they are a heck of a lot easier to replace at any bike shop along the way. When the IGH gears wear out, they are done. I like the ability to limp back home come the worst case scenario. But, I'm biased, I had a manual transmission on a car fail on me before due to poor shimming at the factory.
Rebuildability... derailleur systems, hands down. I suppose if you have money to burn and are willing to wait a week in a hotel for a replacement hub, more power to you. Even a replacement frame would be easier to find in the field than a replacement IGH.

Personally, I love the simplicity of IGH but I would only use it on my commuter, not on a cross country touring bike. If you ride back and forth across the country enough times with both systems, both will fail. One can be fixed at any bike shop along the way. The other is tour ending in most cases. But whatever, it's all hypothetical without real world experience.

Jaywalk3r

Then don't.

Personally, I wouldn't trust a derailer equipped bike for touring (or commuting). Fortunately, we are each free to do our own cost-benefit analysis and to make our own choices.

gerryl

If I could justify the cost to myself I'd go for an IGH. In over 30yrs of riding I've only seen two failures, neither one recent.

staehpj1

That is fine, but 5000 miles, including a 3200 mile tour is nothing that a decent derailleur system can't handle without any issues. I generally get 10,000 miles out of a derailleur system before it needs any parts replaced and then it is usually just the chain. In that 10,000 miles I don't do much more than lube and wipe off the chain. Once in a fairly great while the barrel adjusters on the cable may need to be turned 1/4 turn, but that can be done while riding and does not require and adjustment of the derailleurs themselves. The IGHs require oil changes every 5,000 k (~3100 miles) according to rohloff and you still need to maintain the chain as well. So they are not exactly maintenance free.

For me the cost and weight of an IGH just are not worth it.

Oh, and on the original topic... I think there is way too much desire for the ultimate this and that in bike touring. There are lots of really nice mid range and even lower end components that are completely serviceable. The same for complete bikes. I really do not think all that much about the bike itself when I think back on a tour. It needs to meet some minimum requirements, but once it does other refinements are just not a huge deal in the enjoyment of touring.

If I had to say what bike and components I most enjoyed touring on, it wouldn't even be a touring bike, but rather the old (1990) Cannondale Crit bike with 105 road race components that I rode on the ST. I was ultralight camping though and wouldn't use it if packing a lot heavier. My point being that it isn't anything special and that you can pick up similar bikes for $300-500 pretty easily. For those who pack much heavier there are similarly priced used bikes that would be just as serviceable for their needs. I think the whole ultimate , bike, build, or gruppo thing are kind of a weird and pointless obsession.

Just one man's opinion though.

BigAura

Another negative for IGHs is that if you crack your rim while on tour you'll need to rebuild your wheel.

mdilthey

Oh, then it looks like we're even! Ah, but wait... a replacement Rolhoff is $1,490 plus shipping and a rebuilt wheel... Ouch.

Oh... ok.

jrickards

This is similar to what I was going to say. You could go with a top of the line, electronic shifting system if your tours take you in or near centres where repairs/replacements may be available. However, if you're crossing the plateaus in Nepal, you might be better off with a more easily fixable/replaceable system. The ultimate touring gruppo has to take into account, not just your preferences, knowledge and experience but where in the world you're going to tour and availability of parts/service.