Alternatives to a triple

[Mick F]

With the IGH I'm stuck and can only ever have g a p s,g a p s,or g a p s.
And as I posted before,that's OK if you're happy with it,I'm not

............. and neither am I.

I like wot I've got, and IHG's isn't the right approach AFAIK.
I can pick the range, and I can pick the ratios, and I can pick how many there are.

[reohn2]

with dérailleurs*

....I can pick the range, and I can pick the ratios, and I can pick how many there are.

Nail,head,on

[Brucey]

well if people were really fussed about it, I daresay we'd see more machines like one that a chum has just built; this has a triple chainset, a multiple freewheel with lots of cogs on it, quite close together, all nailed to an IGH. That we don't see this kind of thing more often shows (I think) that it probably isn't worth carrying another lb or two of metal to overcome the deficiencies of any given gearing system.

Much is made of 'horrible gaps in the gearing' but the reality is that if you default to the lower gear when you have a 'horrible gap' then you can have a little rest for a while and the effect on your average speed is not great. I'm sure this won't suit everyone, and perhaps weaker riders will suffer when trying to keep pace with stronger groups etc, but it is nowhere near as big a deal as most folk assume it to be.

If anyone needs more evidence in support of this, I am happy to provide it.

Likewise if anyone would like to show me a nice set of touring derailleur gears that doesn't have weird gaps in it and/or lots of duplicate ratios, and/or that forces you to make awkward double-shifts, or to run cross-chained some of the time , go ahead. Arguments like 'well I chose to have big gaps there and it is no problem' in the same breath as 'I don't like gaps in my gearing' will struggle; it doesn't matter where you have gaps in your gearing on a touring bike, they will be equally troublesome to you at some time or other, that is just the way it is.

cheers

[MikeF]

Although I haven't now any bikes with hub gears, from past experience I would say there's a lot in their favour. Dérailleurs are a bit of an engineering "abomination" pulling and twisting chains about, with all the mechanism exposed to the elements. Not to mention all the duplication of ratios and inability to use some combinations because of cross chaining. The latest "fashion" of using a single chain ring with say an 11 cog rear cassette seems to me to be like an IGH, but with external cogs.

IMV gearing is very much a personal choice depending on the bike, rider, and terrain. I have a bike with 48 38 28 FD and 11-32 RD; I don't really need the 48 as the 38 will cover nearly all I want. I've another bike with same RD but 46 34 24 FD. The 46 and 34 are used most of the time and the 12 tooth jump seems about right. I also now have that on my double chain ring old tourer.

However everybody is different and I think the only way is to see what works for you. But manufacturers like Shimano don't appear to sell a range of chain rings; looks like a "like it" or "lump it" approach. I don't see how anyone can use the best combination using Shimano components - is it possible?

[Brucey]

.... But manufacturers like Shimano don't appear to sell a range of chain rings; looks like a "like it" or "lump it" approach. I don't see how anyone can use the best combination using Shimano components - is it possible?

that is a fair point, I don't think it is as flexible a system as it could be in that respect. I think it is as a consequence of all those ramps and pins that help shifting... they work best as a matched set.... there had to be a price to pay, right?

Same goes for 'standard cassettes' too...

cheers

[pete75]

IMV gearing is very much a personal choice depending on the bike, rider, and terrain. I have a bik
However everybody is different and I think the only way is to see what works for you. But manufacturers like Shimano don't appear to sell a range of chain rings; looks like a uh like it" or "lump it" approach. I don't see how anyone can use the best combination using Shimano components - is it possible?

There's always stronglight and Ta rings and chainsets.

[reohn2]

Although I haven't now any bikes with hub gears, from past experience I would say there's a lot in their favour. Dérailleurs are a bit of an engineering "abomination" pulling and twisting chains about, with all the mechanism exposed to the elements. Not to mention all the duplication of ratios and inability to use some combinations because of cross chaining. The latest "fashion" of using a single chain ring with say an 11 cog rear cassette seems to me to be like an IGH, but with external cogs.

Come off the fence

IMV gearing is very much a personal choice depending on the bike, rider, and terrain. I have a bike with 48 38 28 FD and 11-32 RD; I don't really need the 48 as the 38 will cover nearly all I want. I've another bike with same RD but 46 34 24 FD. The 46 and 34 are used most of the time and the 12 tooth jump seems about right. I also now have that on my double chain ring old tourer.

It seems the obvious solution is to change the chainrings on the 48/38/28 to something that's more appropriate

However everybody is different and I think the only way is to see what works for you.

Exactly!
Which is why I take the trouble to customise my cassettes,and stick with s/taper 110/74BCD chainsets

But manufacturers like Shimano don't appear to sell a range of chain rings; looks like a "like it" or "lump it" approach. I don't see how anyone can use the best combination using Shimano components - is it possible?

Shimano are catering for the mass market,but there are ways and means of thwarting them



sent by Rohloff 14 on gaptalk

[Mick F]

........... sent by Rohloff 14 on gaptalk

The problem with a Rohloff for me, is that the range is too wide. I could cope with 14 set gears, but the circa £1,000 price for 14 ratios when I would only need 12 of them seems a bit daft.

I emailed Rohloff some years ago and asked if they had any intention of producing a closer range unit, but was told NO.

I understand the Rohloff was designed for the off-road market and the heavy long-distant tourist. I don't do either of those things, but I would like one if they made one suited to a lightweight road bike. 14 gears ok, but not so wide a range.

[Brucey]

Mick, the Rohloff is built inside as a 2 x 7 hub. Turning that into a 12 speed hub would be unlikely to save either weight or money.

It would be the hub gear equivalent of trying to turn an ordinary car into a reliant robin, on the basis that an ordinary car clearly has 'too many wheels'....

cheers

[Mick F]

Good morning Brucey.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

The 14 gears are so wide apart, that I would only need 12 of them.
Gear it for a top end of 110", what would be the bottom gear?
Gear it for 25" bottom, what would the top gear be?

[Brucey]

no, I understood what you meant....

FWIW (a long time ago) Rohloff used to make hubs with fewer ratios in them, but they were not as successful as the 14 speed hub. They were also not that much cheaper or lighter than the 14 speed hub.

If Rohloff made a 12 speed hub that was £100 cheaper and 100g lighter, I doubt very much that it would sell that well.

cheers

[niggle]

Good morning Brucey.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

The 14 gears are so wide apart, that I would only need 12 of them.
Gear it for a top end of 110", what would be the bottom gear?
Gear it for 25" bottom, what would the top gear be?

What about 11 gears from 26" to 108", achieved with an IGH that only costs £250 (Alfine 11, plus £100-£200 depending on drop bar shifter choice)?

The full set of ratios would be: 26", 34", 39", 44", 48", 57", 65", 73", 83", 94", 108"

Compare to a road/touring triple with 28-38-48 chainset and 12-27 9 spd cassette, where you would get about 14 usable non-duplicated ratios without double shifting repeatedly, something like: 27", 31", 35", 42", 48", 53", 59", 67", 72", 77", 84", 90", 97", 106".

Steps are a bit closer on the derailleur set up but then I find in my part of the world with a similar set-up I mostly shift a couple of rear cogs at a time.

[Mick F]

What about 11 gears from 26" to 108", achieved with an IGH that only costs £250 (Alfine 11, plus £100-£200 depending on drop bar shifter choice)?

The full set of ratios would be: 26", 34", 39", 44", 48", 57", 65", 73", 83", 94", 108"

That is much better value than a Rohloff, even if you fitted a double chainset to open it up wider.

We were in Plymouth yesterday, and we were chatting to a chap who had just come back from a long tour in Europe. He had a Thorn and Rohloff plus a Bob Yak trailer complete with his dog. (Dog had a passport of course). Chatted for a few minutes as we we admiring his "rig" and patting his dog. He was hugely effusive about his Thorn and his Rohloff ............ and I was mighty impressed, and told him so.

[Brucey]

nice... (I'd want to give the dog pedals -or a hamster wheel that drives or something- as well, but that is just me... )

BTW with an A11 hub for touring I'd dispense with the top gear and have about a 95" top gear. I'd get more use out of the ~23" low gear than the high gear in the 25-107" scheme. Also part of the reasoning for this would be that gears 7,8,9 ought to be the most efficient in this hub, and setting these to be 50, 60, 70-something respectively makes sense from this perspective too.

cheers

[djnotts]

Alfine 11 starting to sound attractive. Would it be possible to drop from "26", 34", 39", 44", 48", 57", 65", 73", 83", 94", 108"" to the 20" - 80" range? Or are there limits to sprocket/ring differential?