New Rohloff Speedhub in 2008?

[peterh]

Saw this on STW: http://hubstripping.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/new-rohloff-speedhub-in-2008/

and http://www.doocey.net/moultonbuzz/?p=71

quote:
    * It still has 14 gears with even steps all the way, but the overall ratio increases from 526% to 580%
    * The hub shell will be about 20% smaller. Useful for building into small wheels
    * The weight will be about 1400g, compared with 1700g of the current version
    * It will not be suitable for use in tandems or other “hard core” uses.
    * A new shifter will be available, though it’s not clear whether this will be an STI/Ergo style shifter for use with drop bars.

Not sure whether to believe it and I don't think I need a larger gear range. But a lighter smaller hub would be nice and a new shifter design would be a good thing. I'd probably be weary until its reliability is proved?

[stutho]

Interesting info. Thanks

As yet there is no mention of the new hub on the Rohloff web site. If they need anyone to do a year long test say 4500 mile I will gladly volunteer ;-)

[freddered]

quote:It will not be suitable for use in tandems or other “hard core” uses.

This immediately puts me off.

They are probably referring to the strength of the flange (an area of weakness in some cases already).

There is NO difference in my mind between 'hard core uses' and a bloody big pot-hole.

[stutho]

The problem is terms like "hard core uses" are very subjective.  A base line would be better.

Something like:
[Example]The new Rohloff is designed to be as strong as the current XT hub.[/Example]
Or better yet:
[Example]The new Rohloff hub is not suitable for touring or off-road use, max rider weight 100kg.[/Example]
The true is we need more info...

[mountaincarrot]

Thank you Peterh.
That's very interesting. The ratio increase is most attractive. Being on the borderline of buying a Rohloff - (& having taken years to build up courage), it's tempting to delay.
I've been riding for the last few months with ratio calcs all along my bars, endlessly trying to figure out whether I'm prepared for the trade-offs of losing gear range compared with MTB 9 speed set up.

[wheezy]

So how much gear range are you actually losing then on the existing Rohloff? I thought a touring or MTB range was just about covered.

[sloe]

increases from 526% to 580%

is an extra gear at either top or bottom. Would be nice, but isn't exactly going to induce hub-envy.

[wheezy]

Yes, but how much more as a percentage than a derailleur set-up?

[freddered]

The increase in gear range comes at a cost.

The great thing about the current model is the 13% jump between ratios, it seems about perfect for Touring. 18" - 95" range on mine.

Mine could do with a higher gear for downhills but I can live without it if it means keeping the 13% jump between gears.

Keeping 14 gears but increasing the overall range will increase the juump between gears.  That's not something I personally want to do.

[stutho]

I too find the current jumps about right (maybe a tad large on the tall gear).  The new jumps will be a bit larger but not by that much, current jumps 13.6% new jumps 14.5%.  This all presumes that the info we have got is accurate - I have yet to see an official announcement.

[sloe]

Wheezy: the derailleur-afflicted can pretty well dial in whatever gear range they want, it's just a q. of choosing components versus wear and weight. From what I can figure out mbers might want a tad more than a Rohloff; tourers (in Eurasia) about what a Rohloff offers, content to sacrifice top speed for hill-climbing seeing as it isn't the easy bits that are hard; roadies get by on less to save on weight.

What would you be wanting to do?

And if these figures are correct then if on the current Rohloff you spun out at 26.3mph, on the new one you would spin out at 29mph, you shameless speed merchant you.

[wheezy]

I was just curious about the typical difference. For example, my XC bike has a 44/32/22 by 11-32 set-up. Which by my calculation gives 18"-104". My maths tends towards the artistic rather than the scientific, so I'm lost at this point.

[PH]

quote:Originally posted by wheezy

I was just curious about the typical difference. For example, my XC bike has a 44/32/22 by 11-32 set-up. Which by my calculation gives 18"-104". My maths tends towards the artistic rather than the scientific, so I'm lost at this point.

That's a range of 578%, the highest gear is 5.78 times the lowest gear.
104 divided by 18, it really is that simple.

[PH]

It looks pretty official to me, too much detail for it to be speculation.  What isn't clear is whether this is a replacement or an addition. It doesen't seem different enough for there to be two models yet the ristrictions and wider spacing would put some people off.  No detail about the new shifter, I'll bet it's not for drop bars.
I'd hoped Rohloff's next hub would be more roadie, 250-350%, 10+ gears and a drop bar lever would be a proper alternative for many people.

[PH]

quote:Originally posted by freddered

quote:It will not be suitable for use in tandems or other “hard core” uses.

This immediately puts me off.

They are probably referring to the strength of the flange (an area of weakness in some cases already).

It'll be more than the shell that's lightened to get a 20% weight saving. The rare flange failures are a result of the manufacturing process. I doubt failures are more common than with any other hub.

Maybe this new hub is aimed more at utility users, though you wouldn't need the number or range of gears and Shimano/SRAM/SA already have that market well covered.
It'll be interesting.