Pondering about hub gears

[cisamcgu]

I read about, and lust over, touring bikes on occasion. However, hub gears continue to confuse me. The Rohloff has 14 gears, but costs a fortune (£900), whereas the Shimano Alfine costs £150 (8-speed) or £300 (11-speed). Why is the Rohloff so much more, and also would it be possible to fit the Shimano Alfine and a double chainset with friction shifters, and thereby getting a theoretical 16/22 gears ?

Or is a derailleur still the best all round choice

Any thoughts ?

Thanks
Andrew

(Sorry about the spelling in the questions )

 

[fossala]

Don't tour on alfine 11. Their reliability is laughable if the thread on CTC forum is anything to go by.

 

[CopperBrompton]

If you can afford Rohloff, that would be the way to go for sure.

 

[srw]

The Rohloff is expensive because it's good and reliable, and comes with a solid warranty. It claims the range of a typical derailleur setup across its 14 gears - I haven't done the sums, but that's credible. On the touring tandem I've never felt it under-geared or over-geared.

I'm no mechanic, but I think you'd need some sort of chain tensioner to get a hub gear to work with a front derailleur - adding to the complexity, and removing the big advantage of hub gears (simplicity).

I've heard of setups with a hub gear in the rear wheel, and a mountain drive (3 speed hub gear) in the bottom bracket.

 

[Yellow7]

I'm presently on my second year-long tour with a Rohloff and wouldn't consider trying anything else.... well maybe a Pinion P1.18, but that's a whole new frame.

It's not specifically about the 'number' of gears but the ratio between them, with a Rohloff the gears are equally spaced (you'd need to check online to see the ratio), whereas a derailleur system is far from equal, with some higher gears being lower in ratio to the gears beneath it, a derailleur system is not supposed to have every cassette gear used on every chain-ring, the cassette's larger gears are for the small chain ring, middle ones for the middle chain ring and smaller ones for the largest chain-ring, moving the chain over the complete cassette means the 'chain line' is not straight and leads to chain failure.

If it's just small tours around Europe then a derailleur is fine, I chose the hub for my London - Capetown tour and had no problems whatsoever, just remove and clean the chain once in a while (I used a KMC BMX chain) but that can now be a thing of the past with the new Rohloff belt drive bikes.

I'd advise against using a second chain ring on any hub gear, you could easily exceed the maximum torque level and damage the hub, the Rohloff manual states ideal sizes for chain-ring and the rear sprocket, I use a 16 sprocket & 42 tooth chain-ring.

I visited the Rohloff factory last year and met Berni Rohloff. Shimano started making hub gears after seeing the success Rohloff were having, but being Patented to the maximum Shimano have not been able to replicate, and doubt they will for a long time.

So really it's down to the intended use of the bike and money available to spend. I'm sure the Shiamno hubs are okay, but then again so are Sturmy Archer, although now owned by Sun Rims, and made in Taiwan, not England.
http://www.sturmey-archer.com/products/hubs.html

This may prove a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_gearing

mark

 

[Drago]

Just carry a spare mech on your World tour. You could carry 4 spares and still weigh less.

 

[srw]

Just carry a spare mech on your World tour. You could carry 4 spares and still weigh less.

Not true. Unless you're in the realm of super-light, a Rohloff setup weighs about the same as a derailleur setup.

And if you're touring, again unless super-light, saving a few grams is low down the priority list.

 

[swansonj]

Part of where your (my) money goes (went) with a Rohloff is lower internal resistance - needle bearings all over. The whole subject of relative losses is contentious anyway. Rohloff claim that their hub (at any rate in the top seven gears) has no higher losses than a derailleur in good condition, and lower losses than a typical derailleur with a mucky chain and worn bearings. But to get those numbers, they measure at a higher power level than most non-racers generate (the % loss goes down as the power goes up with a hub more than with deraileurs, so hubs always fare better in the comparison the higher the power) and offer a dubious justification for this. Probably, at more typical touring power levels, the Rohloff has higher losses than a derailleur. But however they compare to a derailleur, there is little doubt that a Rohloff has lower losses than any other hub gear. Does that matter? It's only a matter of a few percent and most of us couldn't tell the difference -it's dwarfed by e.g. minor changes in handlebar position affecting the aerodynamics. But it clearly does make a difference. If you decide you want a hub, there is no doubt that there are strong arguments on grounds of overall range, reliability, and losses why a Rohloff really is better than any other hub. Whether it's worth the money, each person can only judge for themselves.

 

[Drago]

1.8kg for the Rohloff (+ weight of mounting hardware if required),v

258g for an xt mech, 267g for an xt 9 cog cassette, 302g for the xt rear hub (all 2014 models) = 827g.

You can quite literally carry 4 x spare xt mechs and weigh within a few grams of the Rohloff.

 

[andym]

My guess is that a major part of the appeal of hub gears is better chain life and not having to faff around with keeping indexed gears indexed (Oh yeah and being able to change gears while stationary). You might want to consider fitting bar-end shifters (or thumbies) and using them in friction mode - no more worries about indexing. I've also just downgraded from 9-speeds to 8 - mainly so I could fit a Surly stainless steel middle-ring, but the 8-speed chain is definitely chunkier than a 9-speed. OK it's still not as heavy duty as a 1/8th chain but it's something. Can't do anything about changing gears while stationary though.

1.8kg for the Rohloff v
258g for an xt mech, 267g for an xt 9 cog cassette, 302g for the xt rear hub (all 2014 models) = 827g.

You can quite literally carry 4 x spare xt mechs and weigh within a few grams of the Rohloff.

Being a bit pedantic here: with a Rohloff you'd also save on a couple of chainrings. So quite literally 3 xt mechs?

 

[swansonj]

1.8kg for the Rohloff v

258g for an xt mech, 267g for an xt 9 cog cassette, 302g for the xt rear hub (all 2014 models) = 827g.

You can quite literally carry 4 x spare xt mechs and weigh within a few grams of the Rohloff.

Doesn't the like for like comparison need to include the front mech, extra chain rings, and the difference in the shifters as well? (And the real pedant would include the different chain length...). And the cassette needs to be one that provides as low ratios as the Rohloff too. The xt set up may be lighter nonetheless but perhaps not by as much as you suggest?

Edit - cross post with Andym

 

[Ladep Rewop]

I would say it's horses for courses. I run a Rohloff on my touring bike, practically zero maintenance, can run a heavier 1/8" chain and they are very reliable, you get 14 perfectly equally spaced gears with a 526% range and the weight as far as I'm concerned is just not a factor, I'm touring not racing. the only real issue is will your budget allow it, without a doubt they are an expensive bit of kit.

My sports bike has a dérailleur.

 

[vernon]

I've owned a belt drive Rohloff hubbed touring bike for the past two and a half years. The only maintenance the transmission has needed was two annual oil changes and one adjustment of the belt tension - even then it wasn't strictly necessary as the tension was still within the operating range. There is no need to lubricate the belt. My transmission is set up to give a bottom gear of around 17-18 inches - the same as a 22-34 bottom gear of a mountain bike. The down side is that I'm 'pedalled out' in top gear at around 25 mph which is countered by the enjoyment of non pedalled descents.

On an identical circuit my Rohloff bike is1-2mph slower in average speed compared with my derailleur bikes some of due to being unable to take full advantage of descents and some of it is transmission efficiency loss.

I spurned the Shimano hub gear set up because its bottom gear is a bit higher than the Rohloff hub in addition to reliability concerns about the Shimano set up.

 

[Nigeyy]

I can definitely see the appeal of an internal hub -if a good quality like Rohloff -I'm guessing reliability should be excellent and I'd assume would last longer as the gears aren't as exposed. If I had enough disposable money for one, I'd do it, though 900 quid for it seems excessive! Assuming you have a decent frame and other components, you're talking about leaving a multi-thousand pound machine around when you decide to look around somewhere...... The other concern I might have would be if a Rohloff breaks, I would think the expertise required to fix it would much less accessible (but more expensive) compared to a derailleur and (may be wrong here) a frame that takes a Rohloff doesn't take an ordinary derailleur so you would be stuck. However, this may be offset by the reliability it offers, -and I certainly haven't heard of too many breaking -so that may be more of a theoretical concern than a truly practical one.

Still keeping the derailleurs for now -arguably a much less elegant solution, but they do the job and are considerably cheaper! (Would still love to try one though but at current costs I can't imagine I will be).

 

[Crankarm]

I can definitely see the appeal of an internal hub -if a good quality like Rohloff -I'm guessing reliability should be excellent and I'd assume would last longer as the gears aren't as exposed. If I had enough disposable money for one, I'd do it, though 900 quid for it seems excessive! Assuming you have a decent frame and other components, you're talking about leaving a multi-thousand pound machine around when you decide to look around somewhere...... The other concern I might have would be if a Rohloff breaks, I would think the expertise required to fix it would much less accessible (but more expensive) compared to a derailleur and (may be wrong here) a frame that takes a Rohloff doesn't take an ordinary derailleur so you would be stuck. However, this may be offset by the reliability it offers, -and I certainly haven't heard of too many breaking -so that may be more of a theoretical concern than a truly practical one.

Still keeping the derailleurs for now -arguably a much less elegant solution, but they do the job and are considerably cheaper! (Would still love to try one though but at current costs I can't imagine I will be).

Yeah but if you are touring racking up a lot of miles/km in awful weather you will pay anything for a low maintenance set up. A deraillieur transmission is NOT low maintenance where as an IHG such as a Rohloff with belt drive and full belt guard is. Deraillieurs are a cheap easily massed produced gearing system best suited to warm and dry weather. They do not do wet or very cold at all well as they need constant cleaning and re-lubing. A Rohloff IHG does away with all this faff. A Surly Troll frame has both mounts for a hanger for deraillieur and horizontal drop outs for the Rohloff. Plus there is the gorgeous Shand Stoater Rohloff with belt drive.