VSF FAHRRADMANUFAKTUR - TX-1000 Rohloff. Thoughts please?

[donnieban]

Gattonero, I beg to differ. Someone on this very forum has had problems with a Rohloff shifter, granted not the hub, but they had to cut short a tour because of it, Rohloff shifters not being something easy to pick up just anywhere. I don't think they knew it was a shifter problem until they had returned, something that could have easily been assessed with standard equipment available all round the world.

All this potential trouble is easily avoided with standard equipment, if you are going somewhere remote. I know you were attempting to be comical, but one doen't take spare frame parts, because a typical steel frame is often fixable out in the wild.

Someone, ON THIS VERY FORUM, had a problem with a bike. Dont use bikes!!!!1111!

Excellent suggestion honesty

[pete75]

IME if you build with good quality DB spokes (of the correct gauge(s)) you almost invariably get a better, stronger wheel than with PG spokes; for any given wheel loading the cyclic stresses at the hub and the rim are reduced when you use DB spokes vs PG ones, and are less again when you use more spokes rather than fewer. The typical reason not to do these things (on a touring bike) is to save money.

Sorry, but saving 50p on spokes when you are lacing up a £1000 hub is just mental. The wheels on this bike (and any similar) would be quite a lot improved (being both stronger and lighter) by being built with 36 DB spokes and the rear would be likewise better again if it had 40 spokes in it.



cheers

What makes you think they don't use butted spokes - certainly the wheels in my TX400 use them and the description for the TX-1000 describes the spokes as doppeldickend which is German for double butted. Have you examined the wheels in one of these bikes and found them to differ from the stated specification?
Rohloff claim that a non dished rear wheel is considerably stronger than a dished wheel and most other people who know about wheels accept this as being true. They say their hub built into a 32 spoke wheel is stronger than a dished 36 spoker.
http://www.rohloff.de/en/technology/wor ... index.html

[donnieban]

I suppose the question that needs to be asked is what you intend to use it for OP, as you haven't said. Until you specify, it is hard to say whether this bike is a good choice or not. It is a bit like asking whether a certain car is good, it all depends on the circumstances. A hatchback may be good for some scenarios, but it is no good off road.

More information is required before a meaningful reply can be given.

Sorry Freddie,I thought I had clarified that I have excellent lighter bikes and that this was an extravagant heavier option for loaded tours yet to come.

The TX1000 price is roughly twice that of the more conventional Galaxy, Trek, Trucker and Sutra stable. I think the build quality and parts justify that. Weight wise comparable against Thorns heavy fleet but reportedly much better paintwork. Do I need it, probably not. Its rated as an expedition bike and I am content to plod at 12mph with 4 panniers. Low gearing is as relevant as bike weight when faced with a big hill

donnieban

[Brucey]

What makes you think they don't use butted spokes ...?....

apologies if I've screwed up her but when I read the spec sheet (as linked to in the OP) I read it as 14G plain gauge because it appeared to say that. Normally if spokes are DB they list both gauges and this didn't have that...?

I don't dispute for a second that wheels with less dish are stronger but wheels with more spokes are always stronger too, and they are less likely to break flanges.

cheers

[donnieban]

IME if you build with good quality DB spokes (of the correct gauge(s)) you almost invariably get a better, stronger wheel than with PG spokes; for any given wheel loading the cyclic stresses at the hub and the rim are reduced when you use DB spokes vs PG ones, and are less again when you use more spokes rather than fewer. The typical reason not to do these things (on a touring bike) is to save money.

Sorry, but saving 50p on spokes when you are lacing up a £1000 hub is just mental. The wheels on this bike (and any similar) would be quite a lot improved (being both stronger and lighter) by being built with 36 DB spokes and the rear would be likewise better again if it had 40 spokes in it.



cheers

What makes you think they don't use butted spokes - certainly the wheels in my TX400 use them and the description for the TX-1000 describes the spokes as doppeldickend which is German for double butted. Have you examined the wheels in one of these bikes and found them to differ from the stated specification?
Rohloff claim that a non dished rear wheel is considerably stronger than a dished wheel and most other people who know about wheels accept this as being true. They say their hub built into a 32 spoke wheel is stronger than a dished 36 spoker.
http://www.rohloff.de/en/technology/wor ... index.html

Thanks pete 75, very useful info there.

donnieban

[Brucey]

further to the above, the spec here (OP's original link)

https://www.fahrradmanufaktur.de/katalog/expedition-2016/tx-1000-rohloff-speedhub-14-gang-hs22

just says 'spokes.... Niro D 2mm' which I read as 14G plain gauge; maybe there is more detailed info elsewhere or something...?

IMHO in terms of a 700C rear wheel on a load -lugger;

for: 32h, 36h, 40h respectively

read : 'good', 'better', best'

cheers

[pete75]

Thanks pete 75, very useful info there.

donnieban

I got my bike from here http://bikepark-dissen.de/products/trek ... order=DESC . They're doing quite big reductions on 2015 models - the TX400 looks good at 2000 euros. Bike arrived from Germany in 3 days.

[pete75]

further to the above, the spec here (OP's original link)

https://www.fahrradmanufaktur.de/katalog/expedition-2016/tx-1000-rohloff-speedhub-14-gang-hs22

just says 'spokes.... Niro D 2mm' which I read as 14G plain gauge; maybe there is more detailed info elsewhere or something...?

IMHO in terms of a 700C rear wheel on a load -lugger;

for: 32h, 36h, 40h respectively

read : 'good', 'better', best'

cheers

The spec I saw says SPEICHE Niro Doppeldickend 2 mm which I read as double butted nor was I speaking untruths when I said my own machine, albeit a TX400, has double butted spokes. Guess we're just gonna have to agree to differ on this one.
Is 32h undished any weaker than 36 or even 40 on a wheel dished for a 9 or 10 speed cassette?

[Brucey]

is it possible that the OP's link is for the 2016 model and the spec you are looking at is for the 2015 model? Maybe that could explain the discrepancy? [BTW I read the listing as having a missing '=' sign between the 'D' and the '2', i.e. 'D=2mm' which would be the conventional way for a German spec sheet to list 14G PG spokes.]

In many respects (eg lateral stiffness) a 32h wheel with no dish ought to be comparable to a 36h one that is dished (as Rohloff say), but the fatigue loadings on the various wheel parts (in any given service) are not going to be quite the same (worse for the 32h case). What actually happens is a bit complicated and to some extent depends on the relative stiffness of the rim (in bending) and the elasticity of the spokes. But in general if you have more, skinnier spokes, the wheel is improved in these respects.

Jobst Brandt's wheelbuilding book explains this better than I can (certainly in a reasonable length of time...) but IIRC even his analysis doesn't account fully for the effect of the rim stiffness; eg. I think his FEA model used a segmented rim with pivots between the segments, which represents a limiting (rather than typical) case.

cheers

[Gattonero]

A wheel has to be done with 3 parts: hub, spokes, and rim.
At some point, one of the 3 will fail, and is best to have a failure in the cheapest and easiest to replace: the spoke...................................

Flawed logic there. The potential failure modes aren't mutually exclusive. By choosing to have the spokes fail you don't prevent any of the other failures you just choose it as well.

Things will fail if one insists to push the wheel over its very own limits.
Breaking one spoke on a HD rim with 36 good spokes and a good hub, well that is an alarm that says "ehy, lift that bum from the saddle when you hit a pothole!"

My point is: better to have the cheapest and easiest thing to replace, failing as the early one. Of course, you don't want a failure, but if that happens better to have the one that gives the least of structural problems (i.e. you can ride with one broken spoke of your 36, but you don't want to ride with a cracked rim)

[pete75]

is it possible that the OP's link is for the 2016 model and the spec you are looking at is for the 2015 model? Maybe that could explain the discrepancy? [BTW I read the listing as having a missing '=' sign between the 'D' and the '2', i.e. 'D=2mm' which would be the conventional way for a German spec sheet to list 14G PG spokes.]



cheers

No I was looking at the 2016 spec here https://www.fahrradmanufaktur.de/de/kat ... uct_id=697. It quite clearly states the spokes are double butted.
You obviously regard the English translation of the spec as correct whereas I regard the source document in German as being the accurate version. IMHO the latter is more likely to be correct.

[goatwarden]

A wheel has to be done with 3 parts: hub, spokes, and rim.
At some point, one of the 3 will fail, and is best to have a failure in the cheapest and easiest to replace: the spoke...................................

Flawed logic there. The potential failure modes aren't mutually exclusive. By choosing to have the spokes fail you don't prevent any of the other failures you just choose it as well.

well, quite.

Rohloff have their own ideas about spoking their hubs; they are idiosyncratic too (they wouldn't bother making anything other than a 32h shell for years...it doesn't get much more idiosyncratic than that... ) . .........

Sorry, but saving 50p on spokes when you are lacing up a £1000 hub is just mental. The wheels on this bike (and any similar) would be quite a lot improved (being both stronger and lighter) by being built with 36 DB spokes and the rear would be likewise better again if it had 40 spokes.........

cheers

In Shimano world this is all true. However Rohloff are indeed unusual but more importantly they make a complex product in low volume using unique components. Thus they can't afford to produce forged hub shells. Rather the shell, and thus the flanges, are machined from solid. So the flange cracking problem is a result of poor grain distribution around the spoke holes and, in my opinion, would be worse on a 36 hole version as each spoke would be subtended by a proportionately smaller area of material and so weaker. It is arguable that the stress on each spoke is also proportionately lower but in my experience the flange cracks due to an unusual load on individual spokes (in the case of my tandem, a stone hit one spoke causing it to snap and crack the flange at its base)

I was happy that Rohloff (via their Rolls Royce type warranty: "no it can't have failed,sir, its a Rohloff.") When they replaced mine with another 32 hole version. I believe that Rohloff still recommend the 32 hole version for tandem use. The 36 hole may give a longer fatigue life for lightly loaded (in comparison to a tandem) single bikes but not increased strength.

[syklist]

Thanks pete 75, very useful info there.

donnieban

I got my bike from here http://bikepark-dissen.de/products/trek ... order=DESC . They're doing quite big reductions on 2015 models - the TX400 looks good at 2000 euros. Bike arrived from Germany in 3 days.

That is less than we paid for our T400's in 2008 and we had to pay extra for front racks.

[pwa]

I've got my 32h Rohloff on the back of a tandem, with an Andra rim, and no problems. The rim itself is a heavy duty item, probably very stiff. Mine is 26", so 700c might be a bit less stiff. But it is a rim with plenty of meat on it. The spokes are a bit shorter than normal because of the diameter of the hub flange. I don't know how that affects durability.

The niggly problem with the alternatives from Thorn is potential paint quality issues. I've had three Thorns, one of which has managed to hang on to its paint. All had the supposedly durable powder coat paint with all the prep. But it is easy to get a good fit with Thorn.

[Des49]

In Shimano world this is all true. However Rohloff are indeed unusual but more importantly they make a complex product in low volume using unique components. Thus they can't afford to produce forged hub shells. Rather the shell, and thus the flanges, are machined from solid. So the flange cracking problem is a result of poor grain distribution around the spoke holes and, in my opinion, would be worse on a 36 hole version as each spoke would be subtended by a proportionately smaller area of material and so weaker. It is arguable that the stress on each spoke is also proportionately lower but in my experience the flange cracks due to an unusual load on individual spokes (in the case of my tandem, a stone hit one spoke causing it to snap and crack the flange at its base)

I was happy that Rohloff (via their Rolls Royce type warranty: "no it can't have failed,sir, its a Rohloff.") When they replaced mine with another 32 hole version. I believe that Rohloff still recommend the 32 hole version for tandem use. The 36 hole may give a longer fatigue life for lightly loaded (in comparison to a tandem) single bikes but not increased strength.

That's very interesting, the thought that while 36 spokes are better, 32 holes may be the better compromise due to flange failure. I would prefer to have a 36 spoke hub, but they are relatively recent, and I keep mine on a 26" wheel.

I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with my Rohloff, and am getting worried about it now, bought 2nd hand at a great bargain price. Mine is serial no. 007xxx, which apparently dates it to about 2000 or 2001. I got it after the original purchaser used it for only a few months.

When looking at Rohloff's website recently I came across these - Flange Support Rings:- http://www.rohloff.de/en/products/speed ... index.html

A forged hub shell would be much better I agree, they have sold a lot now and may be could have paid off the manufacturing costs by now.

2 weeks ago I rebuilt my wheel due to a mtb prang which wrecked the rim, wish I was aware of these support rings then as I probably would have fitted them as a precaution. I currently use the hub on an old mtb for racing (not very suited to the task I must say), but the same bike is my heavy duty bike when fitted with rack and mudguards too.

As aluminium is going to fail due to fatigue sometime, I like the idea of these rings and may get a couple to fit, may be even worth rebuilding the wheel before I need to.