Sturmey-Archer S3X

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
pioneer
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Feb 2007, 10:39am

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by pioneer »

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.
mark a.
Posts: 1375
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by mark a. »

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?
pioneer
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Feb 2007, 10:39am

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by pioneer »

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?
gilesjuk
Posts: 3270
Joined: 17 Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by gilesjuk »

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 :D

Ok, you would need two brakes on the bike, but if you're doing scary downhill descents I would imagine two is mandatory anyway.
pioneer
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Feb 2007, 10:39am

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by pioneer »

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.
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by hubgearfreak »

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/ ? 8)
pioneer
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Feb 2007, 10:39am

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by pioneer »

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.
User avatar
rootes
Posts: 605
Joined: 27 Jul 2008, 6:44pm
Location: Woking, Surrey

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by rootes »

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..
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by hubgearfreak »

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
User avatar
rootes
Posts: 605
Joined: 27 Jul 2008, 6:44pm
Location: Woking, Surrey

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by rootes »

just thought it might be best to have direct drive in the gear used most - hmmm will take a look at the ratios options...
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by hubgearfreak »

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
pioneer
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Feb 2007, 10:39am

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by pioneer »

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'?
User avatar
rootes
Posts: 605
Joined: 27 Jul 2008, 6:44pm
Location: Woking, Surrey

Re: Sturmey-Archer S3X

Post by rootes »

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?
Post Reply