Rohloff vs derailleur groupset running costs

[nullarbor]

Re her fascinating thread, I was surprised how little takeonafrica needed to replace after running a Rohloff for 25000km.

Does anyone have a simple comparison on what needs replacing after running an XT groupset for 25000km?

For the first time I suspect that the hub would be very much cheaper to own than a derailleur for high milers.

[meic]

Well if you were to compare it to an XT system then it certainly would be cheaper to Rohloff in the long run.
How many people do that sort of mileage and on just one bike?

If using more common dérailleur transmissions, the mileage needed for pay back with the Rohloff would be even greater.

On my tourer I reckon I could be using up to 2p/mile on transmission parts.
So that would mean about 50,000 miles to pay back the initial purchase price on the Rohloff hub.
Which for a single bike owner could be reasonably achieved in 5-10 years.
If comparing Rohloff to buying XT pay back would be much quicker.

A minor problem is that with a Rohloff you can lose all your capital investment in one theft or accident.

[Mick F]

My views on the Devil Rohloff are well known and well documented on these pages!

Hundreds of quids for only 14 gears, two of which I wouldn't ever need. I emailed Rohloff and asked them very politely if they had any intention of bringing out one of their wonderful hubs with everyday ratios - perhaps a road version.

I received a curt reply:
No.

I can see the attraction, the idea is great and wonderful, BUT it costs a fortune and the ratio range is too wide unless you plan to cycle through Africa fully loaded.

Until a company bring out a hub gear with a 25" to 115" range with loads of steps in between, I'll stick with derailleurs. Cheaper, spares are available to take into account of their inbuilt wear characteristics, and you can have up to 33 ratios!

[[XAP]Bob]

A minor problem is that with a Rohloff you can lose all your capital investment in one theft or accident.

And that is why insurance is useful.

[geocycle]

Re her fascinating thread, I was surprised how little takeonafrica needed to replace after running a Rohloff for 25000km.

Does anyone have a simple comparison on what needs replacing after running an XT groupset for 25000km?

For the first time I suspect that the hub would be very much cheaper to own than a derailleur for high milers.

I'd say the running costs are slightly cheaper on the rohloff. You replace cables, chains and sprockets less frequently than on a derailleur and of course you won't have to replace the derailleurs if they get bent. In return, you should replace the oil every 5000km to mainatin the warranty, although you can get away with much longer intervals if needed. I don't subscribe to the theory that the savings will offset the high purchase cost to any significant extent - you would have to do an awful lot of miles as meic suggests. Note that the purchase price is actually similar to an xtr mountain bike (or even a campag super record) groupset and the range of gears is comparable. A 50 x 16 set up would give you a range of 23" to 119" if you really wanted something that high, or a 40 x 16 would give a very useful 18" to 95" (on 26" wheels). Of course there are only 14 steps but how many do you need for touring? It's not perfect: its a bit heavy and it purrs in gears 6 and 7, otherwise it has never missed a change and I have no complaints.

[zerobuttons]

.....
I received a curt reply:
No.
.....

That one reminded me of the answer a Danish car reviewer got from Bentley many years ago, when asking how many HP their new model, which he was to test-drive, had:
"Enough".

He measured it to a tad more than 600 on the bench.

[zerobuttons]

.....
For the first time I suspect that the hub would be very much cheaper to own than a derailleur for high milers.

You can acquire a Rohloff-hub-equipped bicycle for many different reasons, but saving money would be a bad guess, I think. That said, there is a posting somewhere in these fora that lists the costs of running derailleur vs. Rohloff over a long distance, and it favours the Rohloff.

My reasons for choosing the Rohloff were reputed durability, ease of maintenance and a gear range/spread that fit me well. I´m happy so far (three months, 100-200 km/week).

[DougieB]

I think, to be fair, they (Thorn) are selling the idea of rohloff's for expedition purposes. they do state that they are overkill for road riding, although they'll happily sell you one.

zerobuttons: did you change the standard gearing ? are you going to ? how easy is it really ?

[robinlh]

Two small points
1)reliability
2)can you get a Rohloff changer that works on drop bars?
on the subject of ratios then it it easy to gear the top ,ridiculous 115'' top down a bit to give a lower bottom gear,if required.
But perhaps they don't like that much torque running through it?
On an expedition tourer its still the way i'd go.
except that i like a trike for this sort of thing,and adapting a rohloff for a trike would cause the ever competent proprietor of trykit to present me with an even bigger bill for the exotic engineering he would need to apply to the project.But he'd make it work,trust me!

And it does mean you don't have to worry about dishing on the back wheel.
But assymetric back ends can cure that at less cost.
I don't think there is a right or wrong on this,only what you fancy and what you want to pay for.
it is certainly possible to get enough of derailleur gear trains stretched to the limit on long tours,but you can always use bar end shifters and switch to manual when you've had really enough.
Unless,like me,you are a bit of an engineer who sees these things as an amusing diversion on a long tour when you've had enough of clocking the local tottie and yearn to do a bit of fiddling with a screwdriver.
But not very often.
love
R

[zerobuttons]

.....
zerobuttons: did you change the standard gearing ? are you going to ? how easy is it really ?

Running standard 42x16, and that has proved fitting for me - the two lowest gears are in daily use only for keeping balance when waiting for green light. I intend to use the bike for touring at some point, and I believe that the lowest gears will be of practical use for this purpose.

[zerobuttons]

.....
2)can you get a Rohloff changer that works on drop bars?
.....

http://www.mittelmeyer.de/html/rennlenker.htm

[robinlh]

Yes,well,i suppose you are right in that it undoubtedly works.....................
But its very inelegant,bulky,and very untidy and in the way.
I had in mind a single cable solution on the bar ends,or,perhaps a reincarnation of the old Suntour system set to the left of the right hand brake lever.
I keep telling myself that i would get used to it.................but I DO like elegant solutions,especially at that price.
I will only add that,in spite of all that,its in the right place,to the extent there ever is one.
Many thanks.
Robin

[PH]

Here's my experience, others will differ, they may use their bikes differently, they may have a different maintenance routine, they may simply have different requirements and priorities. But my experience is just that, not hearsay, not what I've read in a review, not what I think it might be, it's just my experience.
When I was commuting 28 miles a day five times a week on a route that included some rough tracks, I spent £142 on transmission parts in the year before I bought my Raven. In the two years after (Same commute same route) I spent £78, saving me over £100 a year. My Raven cost £320 more than the derailleur equivalent, it's not hard to do the maths.
How much does this matter to me? Not a jot. What matters to me is that my Rohloff bike is always ready to go, I don't have to spend hours cleaning the transmission, I don't have to worry if it'll change when it's covered in mud, I don't have to adjust the gears frequently. Non of which I can say was true for me with my derailleur bike. For general use the gearing range and spacing suites me fine, it's the same as on just about every purpose built touring bike.
Why are Rohloff not going to make Mick F a road version? Because derailleurs already perform that function perfectly well. Even Thorn, the biggest promoter of Rohloff bikes in the UK, put derailleurs on their Audax model. I've never understood why some people would have an issue with this, it's like bemoaning their hiking boots spoil their ballet dancing.

[geocycle]

.....
zerobuttons: did you change the standard gearing ? are you going to ? how easy is it really ?

Running standard 42x16, and that has proved fitting for me - the two lowest gears are in daily use only for keeping balance when waiting for green light. I intend to use the bike for touring at some point, and I believe that the lowest gears will be of practical use for this purpose.

You can choose pretty much any ratio you want from thorn within the bounds set by rohloff. I went for 40 x 16 and regularly use them all round here -it's hilly and I often ride loaded and/or offroad. If you want to change within the 100 day test they will let you. If you want to change subsequently then it is just another chain ring (5 bolts) and possibly a longer chain -dead easy.

PH has it spot on as well. Derailleurs are great for many applications, good hub gears for others.

[meic]

Well I cant do the maths.
Too many variables missing.

I'll try though

Dérailleur £142 per annum plus an unknown amount of miles still available from the set up.

Rohloff £398 for two years or £199 per annum plus an unknown amount of miles still available from the set up.

With dérailleurs it is quite easy to know how much they cost because you can wear out a whole system in a couple of years but few people will ever find the final figure for their Rohloff.
Though a lot more people will get a running figure which is less that that possible with an expensive dérailleur system.