Consensus on Rohloff 14-speed hubs?

Jack Kessler said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

All of the above. Actually, most who use them have good things to say
about them. Pete Cresswell will probably give you a good review if he
sees this thread.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Jack Kessler wrote

Quoted message said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

I've had two bikes with Rohloff hubs (still have one) and my sweetie
has one. We both have bikes equipped with deralleurs and with other
internal gear hubs. We are convinced there is no better bicycle
drivetrain than the Rohloff Speedhub. If I could afford to put one on
every one of my bikes, I'd do it.

Advantages:
Huge gear range
Consistent intervals between successive gears
Fast and positive shifts
Shift while pedaling or not, while rolling or at a standstill
Almost no maintenance
The only gearhub with a QR axle
Dramatically reduced chain wear vs. a derailleur
Dishless rear wheel
Indexing is the hub; shift cables need little to no adjustment
Makes the bike look nicer

There are a few drawbacks to the Rohloff hub. Lots of folks who don't
use one are quick to point out extra weight and power losses, but in my
experience neither of these this is noticeable or significant compared
to the hub's benefits or its other drawbacks.

These are the drawbacks as I see them, in no particular order:

The hub comes only in 32 hole drilling-- so fitting one with a 16",
20", 27", 28", or 36" rim could prove tricky. Despite claims to the
contrary, 32 spokes are no subsitute for 48 spokes, even if the wheel
is dishless. I modified my hub shell to accept 48 spokes, but that was
a project well beyond the ability of a typical bike shop, let alone a
home mechanic.

If your bike is not set up with Rohloff OEM dropouts, it will require
you to use the supplied torque arm attachment. This works well enough,
and it allows wheel changes without tools, but it is not so elegant to
look at. At least it's not as clunky-looking as a derailleur and
low-hanging chain.

If your bike has vertical dropouts, you'll have to use the supplied
chain tensioner, which introduces several of the less welcome
characteristics of a deraillaur.

If you use drop bars, there is no ideal way to mount the shifter.
(Score yet another one for flat bars.)

There is a hiccup when shifting between gears 7 and 8 while applying
power.

Installing the shifter cables for the external shift box is an odious
chore. Typical braze-on cable stops and guides on the frame don't work
right. There is a small diameter internal shift cable which does not
have any commonly available substitute.

Shifting takes more force at the twist grip than a derailleur system.

All those drawbacks do not give me a moment's pause in asserting that
the Rohloff Speedhub is the single best bicycle transmission money can
buy. I highly recommend it to anybody who isn't shocked by the price.
I'll admit almost every cyclist I know is shocked by the price, though.

Chalo Colina

Jack Kessler said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

After putting one on a Moots brevet bike, I'd say heavy, expensive,
complicated, needing a frame that can adjust chain tension but it
worked really well, easy to use, very versitile.

Per G.T.:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

They're ungodly expensive, they add two pounds to the bike, they're noisy, and
they're less efficient.

After owning one for a couple of years, I bought a second one.

Here's my original review. Nothing's changed except that either/or I've
gotten used to the noise or the noise diminishes with use - or maybe
I'm in better enough shape that I'm not using gears 1-7 (the noisy ones)
as much.
=====================================================================

Pros:

- Wide shifts:
Probably a substitute for proper technique, but I can clean inclines that I
couldn't before. Hammer in to it in, say, gear 8, then jump down to 4, then to 1
as needed.

Also, on long climbs I like to alternate in and out of the saddle which, for me,
is a 3 or 4 gear shift on each change. With the der I used to do it a lot less
frequently that I really like and in the spirit of "Gee, I sure hope I don't
miss this shift and take the saddle horn up my butt (again...)".

Now I just snap those wide shifts without even thinking about it. Any time, any
place.- I'm always in the right gear, since shifting is essentially trivial;
seems like shifts take less than a fiftieth of a second.

- No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small branches/grass
wrapped around the cog/der.

- It *seems* pretty-much bombproof. Time will tell, but I was spending more time
than I cared to adjusting my der and bending a cog wheel while riding was a
PITA.

- Greatly-reduced frequency of missed shifts. "Reduced" and not "Zero" because
there is a 'gotcha' between 7 and 8 dumps you into gear 14 if you forget and
shift under load.

It pops back into the intended gear as soon as the load comes off, but it's
nothing you want to make a habit of doing.

- Ability to shift down when stopped. I think I make more than my share of
unplanned stops and I used to have to lift up the rear wheel and rotate the
cranks to get down to a starting gear.

Also, my technique sucks and probably won't get any better and it's nice to be
able approach an object and slow way, way down before negotiating it without
worrying about getting stuck in too high a gear to get over it.

- I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds trivial,
but I don't have any brain cells to spare.

- Maybe not so much of a strength, but it should be mentioned somewhere that 14
speeds are enough.

My original 44-32-22 der setup took me from 18.5 to 104.

With the Rohloff on a 44 I get 19.9 to 104.9 in nice even, uniform 13.8%
increments. That's only one less gear and, since I never used 104 it's a wash
for me.

With the 38 that I've since gone over to it's 17.2 - 90.6.
I don't get spun out in 90.6 until about 25 mph - and there's no way I can hold
that speed for very long anyhow.

I left the old 32 in the middle position just because it weighs next to nothing
and, on a big bump sometimes the chain drops (you're supposed to have a
front-der-like dingus up there to keep it from doing that ....but I never go
around to getting one) the 32 catches the chain. Also allows shifting down
to a usually-ludicrous 14.something if things get really bad....

Cons:

- It costs an arm and a leg.

If my wife ever finds out I spent close to a grand on a rear wheel, she'll start
to doubt my sanity.

- This hub weighs a *lot*. It added 1.9 pounds to my already-heavy bike - same
rim/tube/tire/spoke gauge.
Anybody who says it only adds a pound must be using a really, *really* heavy
cog/hub/der/shifter setup. I was using SRAM 9.0 with twist shifters.

- The installation instructions could use a re-write. I'm no rocket scientist,
and after studying them long enough I pulled it off - but it could have been a
*lot* easier.

- It's heavy. Are you ready for an 8-pound rear wheel?

- The torque arm mounting that came with it was decidedly un-German (downright
kludgey, I'd say...). Hose clamps!

Also sometime during the first hundred miles the little clevis pin that held it
all together disappeared. Wasn't a catastrophic failure because the normal
riding pressure pushes everything together.... I probably installed the c-ring
keeper wrong or something - but it seems like a weak point. Replaced it with a
marine shackle set in LocTite.

I have since discovered that there is a more elegant torque arm setup that
Rohloff calls the "SpeedBone". Uses the disk brake mount and does not
interfere with using a disk brake.

- It's heavy.

- It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with age, but
it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.

- It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.

There's a web site somewhere (in German) that supposedly graphs a Rohloff
against one of the Shimanos and claims no loss in most gears and 1-2% in the
lower gears.

I would disagree with that web site's figures.

- Did I mention that it's heavy?

------------------------------------------------

Bottom Line:

This is definitely not for everybody and the torque arm thing bugged me until I
got the more elegant replacement.

Having said that, I find that me and the Rohloff are a good match.

I've quickly gotten so used to getting any gear I want any time I want and never
having to stop and pull brush/branches out of my rear der that I can't imagine
going back.

It also appeals to the exhibitionist in me...

You, on the other hand, might hate the thing.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: it's heavy.
=====================================================================
--
PeteCresswell

Per Chalo:

Quoted message said:

Consistent intervals between successive gears

I suspect that, for a strong road rider, this could be a disadvantage.

Being pathetically weak, I'll never know for sure.... but I suspect that some
riders prefer a cluster of very tight gears up top and a couple of widely-spaced
grannies at the bottom.
--
PeteCresswell

In article <[email hidden]>, (PeteCresswell)

() said:

Per Chalo:

Quoted message said:

Consistent intervals between successive gears

I suspect that, for a strong road rider, this could be a disadvantage.

Being pathetically weak, I'll never know for sure.... but I suspect that some
riders prefer a cluster of very tight gears up top and a couple of widely-spaced
grannies at the bottom.

Part of me had been toying with the idea of setting one up with a half-
step double chainset. Only toying, mind, as I don't have the spare 800+
quid to carry out the experiment for real.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
They came for Eamonn Holmes; I think I'm right in saying that I
applauded.

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per G.T.:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

Watch your attributions. 'twasn't me that said that.

Quoted message said:

They're ungodly expensive, they add two pounds to the bike, they're noisy, and
they're less efficient.

Yeah, I built my entire last bike for the amount of a Rohloff.

Quoted message said:

Pros:

- Wide shifts:
Probably a substitute for proper technique, but I can clean inclines that I
couldn't before. Hammer in to it in, say, gear 8, then jump down to 4, then to 1
as needed.

That's good to hear, I was wondering about that.

Quoted message said:

- No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small branches/grass
wrapped around the cog/der.

Hmmmm, in 20 years of low gear mtn biking I've never taco'd a cog. I've
spun the lowest cog on an old Suntour freewheel but that's about it.

Quoted message said:

- It *seems* pretty-much bombproof. Time will tell, but I was spending more time
than I cared to adjusting my der and bending a cog wheel while riding was a
PITA.

- Greatly-reduced frequency of missed shifts. "Reduced" and not "Zero" because
there is a 'gotcha' between 7 and 8 dumps you into gear 14 if you forget and
shift under load.

It pops back into the intended gear as soon as the load comes off, but it's
nothing you want to make a habit of doing.

- Ability to shift down when stopped. I think I make more than my share of
unplanned stops and I used to have to lift up the rear wheel and rotate the
cranks to get down to a starting gear.

That's pretty cool, too.

Quoted message said:

Also, my technique sucks and probably won't get any better and it's nice to be
able approach an object and slow way, way down before negotiating it without
worrying about getting stuck in too high a gear to get over it.

- I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds trivial,
but I don't have any brain cells to spare.

What about a 42 speed with a triple front?

Quoted message said:

- Maybe not so much of a strength, but it should be mentioned somewhere that 14
speeds are enough.

My original 44-32-22 der setup took me from 18.5 to 104.

With the Rohloff on a 44 I get 19.9 to 104.9 in nice even, uniform 13.8%
increments. That's only one less gear and, since I never used 104 it's a wash
for me.

With the 38 that I've since gone over to it's 17.2 - 90.6.

That's pretty cool.

Quoted message said:

Also sometime during the first hundred miles the little clevis pin that held it
all together disappeared. Wasn't a catastrophic failure because the normal
riding pressure pushes everything together.... I probably installed the c-ring
keeper wrong or something - but it seems like a weak point. Replaced it with a
marine shackle set in LocTite.

I have since discovered that there is a more elegant torque arm setup that
Rohloff calls the "SpeedBone". Uses the disk brake mount and does not
interfere with using a disk brake.

- It's heavy.

- It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with age, but
it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.

That would bother me.

Quoted message said:

- It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.

That might bother me if it's noticeable. But now that I have a road
bike it only took a couple of switches back and forth between my road
bike and my mtn bike to not be bothered by the inefficiency of the low
pressure tires on my mtn bike.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

(PeteCresswell) said:

Pros:

Snip <

- No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small branches/grass
wrapped around the cog/der.

In my years of biking rough trails, I have never taco'd a cog. How does
one go about doing this?

-nate

Dear Jack,

I'll let you know the results of my testing as soon as I find a used
bike for under $100 that features a $1,000 Rohloff hub.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Jack Kessler said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
sack of sugar weighs?

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Jack Kessler said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
sack of sugar weighs?

Dear Michael,

Well, since you ask, it looks like that five pound sack of
sugar weighs less than 2 pounds.

In my case, a 5 pound sack of sugar weighs about 2.2% of the
14-speed 2x7 bicycle and body that I just pushed up my daily
hill.

But a 14-speed 4.3 pound Rohloff wonder-hub probably doesn't
add 4.3 pounds to a typical bicycle.

We have to keep in mind that the Rohloff and its associated
gizmos replace an existing freehub, cassette, derailleur,
quick-release, cable, and shifter, plus the front
derailleur, cable, shifter, and second chain-ring.

Browsing through Nashbar, I see these weights:

365 grams 8/9 speed shimano deore lx 8/9 freehub
61 grams skewer to make same hang onto bike
347 grams obese nashbar house brand 8-speed cluster
265 grams shimano double ss tiagra 8/9 speed rear derailleur
61 grams shimano sora double front derailleur

.. . . hmm, can't find chain rings, switch to . . .
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=chainrings

80 grams shimano 44 tooth chain ring

.. . . too lazy to worry about shifters and cables

(I'm sure that there are lighter and heavier combinations,
just as I'm sure that experts will be appalled by my three
minute mis-matched grab-bag of parts, but it's the thought
that counts.)

That's about 1.2 kg of old derailleur stuff, so a Rohloff
enthusiast is replacing around 2.6 pounds of one kind of
transmission for about 4.3 pounds of another, a net gain of
1.7 pounds, plus or minus a few batches of cookies, to use
our sugar-sack metric.

So let's crank up a handy calculator . . .

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

.. . . and send its standard rider up a 5% grade for an hour,
hands on tops and so forth, and then add our 1.7 pound bag
of sugar and do it again.

I get 7.4 mph for both riders.

Drat! Let's switch to less flexible calculator that offers
the illusion of more precision . . .

http://w3.iac.net/~curta/bp/velocity/velocity.html

Put in the same 160 watts, use this site's slightly
different defaults for the rest, tilt the road 5%,
calculate, then add our 1.7 pound bag of sugar and calculate
again . . .

It looks like 7.5947 mph versus 7.5321, a loss of 0.0626
miles in an hour, or about a 330 foot lead in 7.6 miles, a
0.824% improvement for the kind of rider who's happy to put
out 160 watts. (Rohloffs obviously aren't for racers.)

I doubt that any remotely normal rider can tell the
difference while just riding along if we slip a 1.7 pound
lead weight into the bottom of his 18 to 21 pound bicycle.

We can notice differences of a few grams when components are
measured on electronic scales, but we're unlikely to notice
when the state of our bowels, bladder, and water bottle
cause our riding weight to vary far more.

For me, the real weight problem of the Rohloff becomes
apparent when I try to lift its $1,000 price tag.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Jack Kessler said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
sack of sugar weighs?

The hub (oem, without oil or skewer) weighs 1705 grams (3.75 lbs) ie 25
grams more than a Nexus 8sp

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

G.T. said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

- I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds trivial,
but I don't have any brain cells to spare.

What about a 42 speed with a triple front?

Rohloff specify a minimum primary gear ratio of 2.4:1. That's 38/16,
and it buys you some very low gearing as Pete pointed out. Some folks
disregard the rating and fit a triple or a Schlumpf Mountain-Drive, but
I would not want to risk lunching my Rohloff that way.

For heavyweight riders (220+ lbs.), or for tandemists, they specify a
minimum 40/16 primary ratio. I weigh a LOT more than 220 lbs, and I
use 205mm cranks, so I use 44/16 primary gearing on my Rohloff, in the
interest of a long happy time together.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with age, but
it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.

That would bother me.

Mine and my honey's are not especially noisy, though they do make more
noise than a derailleur with plastic pulleys. The amount of noise in
the louder gears like #7 is about the same as aluminum derailleur
pulleys, but it is a totally different kind of noise-- sort of a low
grumbly sound rather than the high rattly noises that derailleur
systems make.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.

That might bother me if it's noticeable. But now that I have a road
bike it only took a couple of switches back and forth between my road
bike and my mtn bike to not be bothered by the inefficiency of the low
pressure tires on my mtn bike.

I don't feel it. I understand that the fraction of power lost to gear
friction is related to the gross power level, and that as gross power
increases the percentage of loss decreases. I may not go all that
fast, but I do put a lot of wattage through that hub, so maybe that has
something to do with why I don't notice extra losses vs. my derailleur
bikes.

For what it's worth, I feel like I lose a whole gear to inefficiency
when I ride one of my Nexus 7 equipped bikes, but my Sachs Spectro 7
speed bikes don't feel any lossier to me than my derailleur bikes.

Chalo Colina

Chalo said:

G.T. said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

- I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on. Sounds trivial,
but I don't have any brain cells to spare.

What about a 42 speed with a triple front?

Rohloff specify a minimum primary gear ratio of 2.4:1. That's 38/16,
and it buys you some very low gearing as Pete pointed out. Some folks
disregard the rating and fit a triple or a Schlumpf Mountain-Drive, but
I would not want to risk lunching my Rohloff that way.

For heavyweight riders (220+ lbs.), or for tandemists, they specify a
minimum 40/16 primary ratio. I weigh a LOT more than 220 lbs, and I
use 205mm cranks, so I use 44/16 primary gearing on my Rohloff, in the
interest of a long happy time together.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates with age, but
it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.

That would bother me.

Mine and my honey's are not especially noisy, though they do make more
noise than a derailleur with plastic pulleys. The amount of noise in
the louder gears like #7 is about the same as aluminum derailleur
pulleys, but it is a totally different kind of noise-- sort of a low
grumbly sound rather than the high rattly noises that derailleur
systems make.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.

That might bother me if it's noticeable. But now that I have a road
bike it only took a couple of switches back and forth between my road
bike and my mtn bike to not be bothered by the inefficiency of the low
pressure tires on my mtn bike.

I don't feel it. I understand that the fraction of power lost to gear
friction is related to the gross power level, and that as gross power
increases the percentage of loss decreases. I may not go all that
fast, but I do put a lot of wattage through that hub, so maybe that has
something to do with why I don't notice extra losses vs. my derailleur
bikes.

For what it's worth, I feel like I lose a whole gear to inefficiency
when I ride one of my Nexus 7 equipped bikes, but my Sachs Spectro 7
speed bikes don't feel any lossier to me than my derailleur bikes.

Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

For what it's worth, Kyle and Berto tested a 7-speed Shimano
Nexus, a 7-speed Sturmey Archer, a 7-speed Sachs, a 14-speed
Rohloff, along with others, for efficiency.

Figure 12 shows these four hub gears rising in average
efficiency at 80, 150, and 200 watts, with a range of about
1% difference for the Shimano, Sachs, and Rohloff, with the
Sturmey roughly another 1% below the pack:

http://www.ihpva.org/pubs/HP52.pdf

(The averages for the graph are taken, I think, from the
details of Table 1, at the end of the article. My 1%
estimate can be improved, but the graphs and figures
strongly suggest that there's little difference between the
Shimano, Sachs, and Rohloff, while the Sturmey's inferiority
is noticeable, but trivial.)

These tests suggest only 2 to 4 watt absolute differences at
200 watts, so it's likely that either riders who report much
more impressive power differences are actuallly noticing
other differences between the bikes that they ride (tires,
inflation, differences in internal gear steps, overall
gearing, wind on the ride, and so forth), or else that one
of the transmissions on the bikes that they ride happens to
be a lemon that doesn't represent the model very well.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Chalo said:

Jack Kessler wrote

Quoted message said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

I've had two bikes with Rohloff hubs (still have one) and my sweetie
has one. We both have bikes equipped with deralleurs and with other
internal gear hubs. We are convinced there is no better bicycle
drivetrain than the Rohloff Speedhub. If I could afford to put one on
every one of my bikes, I'd do it.

Advantages:
Huge gear range
Consistent intervals between successive gears
Fast and positive shifts
Shift while pedaling or not, while rolling or at a standstill
Almost no maintenance
The only gearhub with a QR axle
Dramatically reduced chain wear vs. a derailleur
Dishless rear wheel
Indexing is the hub; shift cables need little to no adjustment
Makes the bike look nicer

There are a few drawbacks to the Rohloff hub. Lots of folks who don't
use one are quick to point out extra weight and power losses, but in my
experience neither of these this is noticeable or significant compared
to the hub's benefits or its other drawbacks.

These are the drawbacks as I see them, in no particular order:

The hub comes only in 32 hole drilling-- so fitting one with a 16",
20", 27", 28", or 36" rim could prove tricky. Despite claims to the
contrary, 32 spokes are no subsitute for 48 spokes, even if the wheel
is dishless. I modified my hub shell to accept 48 spokes, but that was
a project well beyond the ability of a typical bike shop, let alone a
home mechanic.

If your bike is not set up with Rohloff OEM dropouts, it will require
you to use the supplied torque arm attachment. This works well enough,
and it allows wheel changes without tools, but it is not so elegant to
look at. At least it's not as clunky-looking as a derailleur and
low-hanging chain.

If your bike has vertical dropouts, you'll have to use the supplied
chain tensioner, which introduces several of the less welcome
characteristics of a deraillaur.

If you use drop bars, there is no ideal way to mount the shifter.
(Score yet another one for flat bars.)

There is a hiccup when shifting between gears 7 and 8 while applying
power.

Installing the shifter cables for the external shift box is an odious
chore. Typical braze-on cable stops and guides on the frame don't work
right. There is a small diameter internal shift cable which does not
have any commonly available substitute.

Shifting takes more force at the twist grip than a derailleur system.

All those drawbacks do not give me a moment's pause in asserting that
the Rohloff Speedhub is the single best bicycle transmission money can
buy. I highly recommend it to anybody who isn't shocked by the price.
I'll admit almost every cyclist I know is shocked by the price, though.

Chalo Colina

I have two bikes with Rohloff Speedhubs, the first one I got when they
had only been on the market for about 4 months, and today I don't want
to ride with anything else. I have put maybe 5,000 miles on the
Speedhubs, and as far as I am concerned, dérailleurs are obsolete
technology. Easy shifting,even when stopped or under moderate load,even
spaced shifting, broad range etc. Some noise in the lower gears,
especially 6 and 7, but it is bearable. Expensive? Yes, but I note a
comment I read in the German bicycle newsgroup: If they weren't so
expensive I would have one on all of my bicycles except my racing bike.

For my part, I have custom touting bikes built in hybrid configuration,
and like touring on all kinds of road surfaces. The Speedhub is perfect
for this.

--
Cheers! OliverS
When replying personally, remove "_nospam_"

"When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of
the human race." HG Wells

In article <[email hidden]>,

M-gineering said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Jack Kessler said:

They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
for some uses but not others?

I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
sack of sugar weighs?

The hub (oem, without oil or skewer) weighs 1705 grams (3.75 lbs) ie 25
grams more than a Nexus 8sp

Did you weigh it? How much with oil and skewers?
weightweenies gives

2316 g: red; w/ bellows, rear 1/2s of cable joints, w/o
oil: 1740 g, assembly: 576 g

1985: hub + grip shifter (w/out cables), colour???

--
Michael Press

Per Llatikcuf:

Quoted message said:

In my years of biking rough trails, I have never taco'd a cog. How does
one go about doing this?

I've done three and don't have a clue.

I just start missing shifts on certain cogs and when I pull the thing off and
look closely, sure enough: it's cockeyed. If recollection serves, it's been the
#2 or #3 (i.e. not the biggest, but the next two biggest).
--
PeteCresswell

Per [email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

But a 14-speed 4.3 pound Rohloff wonder-hub probably doesn't
add 4.3 pounds to a typical bicycle.

It added 1.9 pounds to mine. Same rim, same tires... SRAM der setup with
twist shifters.
--
PeteCresswell

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

M-gineering said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Jack Kessler" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> They're a novelty but they don't work? Everybody would and should have them
> but they're too expensive? The coming thing? Not worth the weight? Good
> for some uses but not others?
I see Pete Creswell posted a review. Did he mention that
it is heavy? 4.3 lb. Ever notice how much a five pound
sack of sugar weighs?

The hub (oem, without oil or skewer) weighs 1705 grams (3.75 lbs) ie 25
grams more than a Nexus 8sp

Did you weigh it?

yes

How much with oil and skewers?

25 ml oil is probably 20 grams, Rohloff don't do a skewer

Quoted message said:

weightweenies gives

2316 g: red; w/ bellows, rear 1/2s of cable joints, w/o
oil: 1740 g,

never buy a red one unless you want a tatty one, the paint drops of real
soon.

Quoted message said:

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl