Sturmey-Archer S3X
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
TWG, I have the X-RF5. So the S3X is based on the new X-RF5 W (wide).That would explain things. It's funny,I thought part of the point of Sturmey' doing this was to have a fixed hub with closely spaced ratios.After all,your still not going to tour the Alps with one.
Anyhow,if it works well,I'm all for it.
Anyhow,if it works well,I'm all for it.
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
Thanks Roger. Excellent review. Sounds like a lot of fun. I wonder how long it will take before your legs instinctively switch cadence when you change gear?
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
I know how the S2C/duomatic design hubs change gear "down", but at the risk of asking a stupid question (or one at least that I just can't fathom right now!), how do you then change gear back up?
- hubgearfreak
- Posts: 8212
- Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm
- hubgearfreak
- Posts: 8212
- Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
glueman wrote:The fixed triple sounds slightly scary, I have enough trouble slowing downhill on 70". At 95" legs whirling off Holme Moss you could leave some serious amounts of rubber and skin behind if things got sketchy. Or a sheep played chicken.
Perhaps they're missing a trick, have a three speed fixed hub with a "disengage" gear where you can coast
Ok, you would need two brakes on the bike, but if you're doing scary downhill descents I would imagine two is mandatory anyway.
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
Thanks Hubbers, it came to me on the way home yesterday after a very wet Sunday club run, that for me a two speed hub might be ideal. I normally only use the middle three of the Sturmey' 5 hub and more often than not,just gears 4 and 3 (68" and 54").The Sturmey' 5 is OK but's it's very heavy. (As I think is the S3X?).
Somewhere much hillier would ofcourse be different,but for my usual roads and riding and even light touring, the 2 speed might be an option.
Somewhere much hillier would ofcourse be different,but for my usual roads and riding and even light touring, the 2 speed might be an option.
- hubgearfreak
- Posts: 8212
- Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
pioneer wrote: I normally only use the middle three of the Sturmey' 5 hub and more often than not,just gears 4 and 3 (68" and 54").
assuming a tyre size of 622-28, then an AW with
42/21 would give 41, 54 & 71.
42/22 would give 38, 51 & 68.
the advantage of an AW, is that it's not too heavy, uncomplicated and also they're very cheap.
sadly, the 3 speed bikes most people have tried have had steel wheels & gas pipe frames, in addition to being over-geared.
have you tried http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/ ?
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
I had an AW on the Raleigh before the 5 speed. (Actually bought from this site already built into a DRC ST19 rim). With a 40 tooth chainring and 20 tooth sprocket I reckon I got 72,54 and 40".And yes,in some ways it is still a better hub than the 5'.(And it was made in 1974)
I've still got it and it may yet find it's way into another bike.
I've still got it and it may yet find it's way into another bike.
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
quite like the look of this hub - was thinking of building up a 3 speed wheel for my Pearson Touche single speed..
quite like the fact that it seems to accept a screw on single speed freewheel and that top gear is direct so could have usual 70-72" top gear direct drive with no losses plus two lower gears for serious hills plus keep the freewheel rather than going fixed..
mentioned screwon freewheel plus picture shows threads on:
http://www.sturmey-archer.com/products/hubs/cid/3/id/47
other speed hubs (SA, Sram etc seem to be direct drive in the middle gear...
shame the s3 is £140 more than an SRF..
quite like the fact that it seems to accept a screw on single speed freewheel and that top gear is direct so could have usual 70-72" top gear direct drive with no losses plus two lower gears for serious hills plus keep the freewheel rather than going fixed..
mentioned screwon freewheel plus picture shows threads on:
http://www.sturmey-archer.com/products/hubs/cid/3/id/47
other speed hubs (SA, Sram etc seem to be direct drive in the middle gear...
shame the s3 is £140 more than an SRF..
- hubgearfreak
- Posts: 8212
- Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
rootes wrote:top gear is direct so could have usual 70-72" top gear direct drive with no losses plus two lower gears for serious hills plus keep the freewheel rather than going fixed.
it's a valid enough point, i suppose - if money was no object.
but the losses incurred by using an AW in 3rd (at 72") with similarly two lower gears is a compromise well worth accepting if it'll save you £200, i'd have thought
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
just thought it might be best to have direct drive in the gear used most - hmmm will take a look at the ratios options...
- hubgearfreak
- Posts: 8212
- Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
rootes wrote:just thought it might be best to have direct drive in the gear used most
you're right, it is best.
but to me, the extra % or 2 drag isn't worth worrying about enough to warrant a further £200
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
I've just heard that the S2C may not be made available to the UK market. (from oldbiketrader) Very surprising if true and a little odd. Unless the demand from the industry has been so much it's caught them napping'?
Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X
Rogerzilla,
so to confirm, using this hub gives you 3 cloers ratios than say a standard 3 speed sturmey hub? Sheldon Calc seems to confirm this.
Cheers
Si
ps have you a picture of it on your bike in cable route etc?
so to confirm, using this hub gives you 3 cloers ratios than say a standard 3 speed sturmey hub? Sheldon Calc seems to confirm this.
Cheers
Si
ps have you a picture of it on your bike in cable route etc?
