Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Rohloff Internal Hub Gears => Topic started by: Aushiker on December 27, 2014, 04:09:15 AM
-
In researching and framing my planned of my Surly ECR (http://aushiker.com/surly-ecr-29/) I have been weighing up and going back and forward on the idea of a Rohloff hub. So I did the numbers (the dollars but not the weights) of a Rohloff hub versus what I am likely to do in the form of a derailleur build.
Now of course I can spec up the derailleur build and close the cost gap or for that matter go the other way. I have also not included the crankset/chain in my costings. My work on finding a suitable crankset with a 54 mm chain-line for the Rohloff indicated a similar price to the Surly Crankset I would go with my derailleur setup so it really does not come into play in the decision.
The pricing is based on supply ex German retailer, Bike24.com (http://www.bike24.com/) for comparison purposes using the December 27, 2014 exchange rate as provided by XE.com (http://xe.com). I have included postage in the cost. All prices are ex-VAT.
Rohloff Speedhub 500/14 CC DB OEM ex Bike24.com - Germany - Delivered - $1,392
The derailleur components prices are based on the ex-VAT prices from the German retailer. My comparable derailleur setup is $373
SRAM X9 10-Speed Trigger Shifter - Set 2x10-speed - $120
SRAM X9 Rear Hub - Quick Release - Black - $72
Nokon Cable Set for Road/MTB Derailleur or Brake 22 $75.00
SRAM PG-1070 Cassette 10-speed 12-36 - $76
Postage - $30
Of course I can lower or increase the specification and the costing difference would change but as it stands I am looking at a $1,019 price difference. I am just not convinced that the Rohloff has $1,019 of value in it to warrant the additional weight and the lower maintenance requirements. Have I got it wrong?
Andrew
-
Yeah, you got it wrong, but not instantaneously. What you're considering is the initial purchase. But a Rohloff will last 100,000 plus miles, perhaps two or three times (nobody actually knows, because nobody has worn one out), and effectively carries a lifetime guarantee for a service investment of under twenty dollars a year. So you need to consider how many $373 sets of SRAM components you will wear out in a Rohloff lifetime, or as much of the Rohloff lifetime as is relevant to you, after which the Rolloff will have a residual value which should be taken into account. Also, on a Rohloff the chain, chainring and sprocket lasts longer than on a derailleur bike because it isn't jerked about, and a Rohloff further offers the opportunity to fit a Chainglider, which makes the transmission last longer still. Over the lifetime of a Rolloff that could mount up substantially.
Also, less subtly, a Rohloff is probably the finest hub gearbox you can buy. I don't know much about derailleur groupsets any more (I went over exclusively to hub gearboxes in 2002), but is the SRAM you're talking about at the top of the tree? if not, you want to compare the cost of a Rohloff with the best derailleur setup you can buy.
-
I too thought like too, and sometimes still do, but
I've turned a bit lazy and do like not having to tweak and tinker with the Rohloff set up. Ever.
The wheels are much stronger and have stayed true even though I've gone over the worst roads, with more gear than ever before .
The shifting is great.
1 thing I don't like.
It does seem a slower unit as it doesn't freewheel as easy
So far have done about 16000km and the gears are like new and never had an issue yet. I do use 2 chains and swap regularly
The derailleur system would've had to have been replaced and skipped a few times as well.
For long touring the Rohloff
-
Agree with Andre and Onrbikes. If you are in it for the long haul the rohloff repays in spades. I noticed recently that top of the range derailleur group sets are significantly more expensive than a rohloff by the time you've included everything - I don't see the front and rear derailleurs in your list?
The main advantages are in terms of low maintenance and reliability. For example, I came in yesterday covered in mud in the rain. Rather than spend the afternoon fettling a derailleur I simply put the bike in the shed! This morning off again and all ran sweetly. It has never missed a change. My rohloff has about 23000 miles on it. I'm not sure if it has saved money against derailleurs yet but my time is more valuable.
-
I regularly ride four different bikes. The newest is a Rohloff bike (Nomad Mk II) that I built up in Spring 2013. I did not consider the cost, I decided to get a Rohloff. This is an expedition bike, I expect some day to ride it off road for extended tripping, but have not gotten around to it yet. The older three bikes are derailleur with triple cranks.
Last spring I rode the Rohloff bike on a 100 mile four day fully supported trip where a 4X4 vehicle hauled our camping gear, food and water in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, USA. For that trip I installed a suspension fork and suspension seat post, but normally use the solid Nomad fork and solid seatpost. Of our group of 10 riders, I was the only one that did not have a full suspension mountain bike. Several had suggested that I rent a suspension bike but I really wanted to see how the Nomad performed, so I used that instead. All of the other riders had derailleur bikes.
I have ridden the derailleur equipped bikes on several tours hauling my camping gear, one of the bikes is a LHT 700c and one is a Thorn Sherpa. Some of the tours were on pavement, some on gravel but the gravel trails were quite civilized, if it was legal a two wheel drive compact car could have driven on the gravel trails. Thus, the gravel trails were not difficult at all. The last tour I did on a derailluer bike was this past summer, 890 miles on pavement with the LHT. (But while on that trip I wished I had the Sherpa instead.)
General observations in the order that I thought of them, not in any order of importance:
- The Canyonlands trip had a lot of sudden change of slope, the Rohloff was faster shifting than a derailleur bike would have been. With a derailleur bike, you have to have several wheel revolutions to move the chain up and down the cassette over several gears, and several wheel revolutions is quite a distance. I was happy that I had the ability to change gears faster, within a few feet of distance. That said, I use drop bars on this bike and my shifter was not mounted on a handlebar like it would be if I had flat bars, thus the shifts would have been faster if I did not have to move one hand to shift.
- The derailleur bikes are lighter. Not sure how much of that is the lighter weight build of the bikes and how much of that is the different drive trains. But for my most recent tour I used my lightest weight touring bike since the entire tour would be on paved road and the anticipated weather would allow minimal camping gear weight.
- My derailleur bikes have a wider gear range than the Rohloff. On the two derailleur touring bikes I have a range of 630 percent, however on my last tour I used a smaller big chainring to give me half step gearing, that reduced the range to 558 percent. The Rohloff has a range of 526 percent. On several of my tours I have desired a lower low gear and have also spun out in the high gear with a tail wind or long shallow downhill. Thus, I like a wide range and I wish the Rohloff had a slightly wider range than it has.
- The lowest ratio (chainring teeth/rear cog teeth) that I run is 2.25 for off road, but Rohloff allows down to 2.1. I do not know what chainring you would use with a Rohloff, but I suspect it would be a small one to give you a low gear in the range of 16 or 17 gear inches. Would the derailleur system give you as low a low gear? My lowest gear on the Rohloff is 16.3 gear inches. The lowest gear on my derailleur touring bikes is 19.3 gear inches.
- The Rohloff has a periodic oil change requirement. The derailleur system you are considering probably will consume chains faster. I do not know which will cost more to operate over the long term. I would not be surprised if the cost for Rohloff oil changes is comparable to more frequent chain and cassette replacements on a derailleur bike.
- I do not know if the derailleur system would consume more spokes or not, a well built wheel should hold up well. But if you are tough on your equipment, the Rohloff bike spokes should last longer being an undished wheel. I have not replaced a spoke on a bike since the 1980s, but I am not very tough on my bikes. Only you would know how tough riding you will do and if this is an issue. I used 36 spoke wheels on my Rohloff, although the norm is 32.
- I have never encountered the muddy or sandy conditions that have disabled some derailleur bikes. So I can't comment on the difference between Rohloff and derailleur in such conditions. Do you anticipate such conditions?
If I think of anything else, I will add it later. Photo of my Rohloff equipped Nomad Mk II.
-
I don't think you should compare with the top of the range groupsets as all you gain with them is some weight saving. I regard deore the best for day to day use. I understand that rohloff is very expensive but that is fine. If you don't think it is worth the extra don't buy it. The only reason I use rohloff is because I'm lazy and can't be bothered to clean my bike.
-
... my time is more valuable.
This is the most important consideration in buying a Rolloff gearbox for the large majority of cyclists. We don't give it enough attention, perhaps because it sounds a bit silly to say, "Yeah, well, I spent a grand on a hub gearbox so I can have an extra half hour a day for riding that I would otherwise spend on cleaning the transmission." But that's only because cycling still has a hangover from its workingclass and masochist-athletic origins, both entirely irrelevant to people who ride bikes that cost as much as a Thorn.
There are a few exceptions where the value of one's time isn't the key consideration in choosing a Rohloff, and they are travellers in dangerous surroundings, where the reliability of the Rolloff is more important than the time saved, more important than anything else.
-
For me, the luxury of the Rohloff consists in its utter simplicity of operation. When the road is going up and down and I have been out all day and am exhausted, I often find myself caught in an awkward configuration with dual shifters. The uphill slope gets steeper and I try to downshift another notch in the back, but, ooops, I have got myself cross chained. I should have shifted to the small ring in the front 100 yards back. But I didn't. So now my speed is dropping close to zero and I need to get to the small ring in front. Very likely I just won't have the momentum needed to carry the bike far enough to get the chain back into a working configuration. Ugh. If the road is clear, I might turn around and go downhill a touch to get the chain to where I can use it. Or maybe I am stuck walking. If I am carrying groceries or camping gear or whatever, it might really be an unwelcome challenge to try to lift the back and pedal with the rear wheel spinning free to complete the shift. Yeah, all this is because I am an unskilled rider.
That's it. The Rohloff is very forgiving for the unskilled rider. Whatever jam I get myself into, I can just turn that shifter and drop into a lower gear. Probably I need enough momentum to carry me two or three feet to be able to shift four steps. Half a second to shift, 2 mph to balance. Compared to maybe five yards with a derailleur, to get a front shift to complete. Five yards up a steep hill. Ouch.
For me, the value of a dynamo is similar. I just don't have to think about batteries and charging and can I ride that far that fast to beat the fading light. If I need lights, I have lights. Simple.
-
Andy, I'll echo what's been said by others who have more experience with Rohloff hubs than I have (one year, this past season).
A few things to add, however:
1) It's much easier to change gear ratios with a Rohloff -- a matter of changing only your single chainring at the front, and/or your sprocket at the back.
2) I have much less experience with touring than many people on this site -- only about 10 - 12 years. I bought my first touring bike in 2002: a really good quality locally spec'd (Eclipse) ti-framed light touring bike with carbon forks. I still have it -- now, however, it's mainly for day rides, displaced by the Thorn Raven I bought a year ago. In the 10 years or so I used the Eclipse, I used three power trains, all Shimano: 105, LX, and now Deore. The price of those, taken together & including labour, exceeds by about 25% what I paid for my Rohloff from starbike.com.
3) Why three power trains, you ask? Part of the reason is that, if I knew then what I know now about bikes, touring, and my own interests & tastes, I would not have spent so much time experimenting, trying to find what suited me best. I didn't always get the most appropriate advice, and my needs/tastes changed as well. BUT, the biggest part of the reason I opted to get a Thorn + Rohloff is that I have had way too many hassles with derailleur maladjustments -- sometimes in the middle of tours, sometimes at home, close to my LBS and/or my workshop. My experience is probably worse than many others', and to be sure, nothing catastrophic ever happened, but it was just like getting nibbled to death by ducks. No fun, hauling yourself up a 13% hill, having to go for your low x low, and not at all confident you'd get it.
After learning more about the care and feeding of derailleurs than I really wanted to--and people like Dan were very helpful and patient with their wisdom and excellent technical advice--I said, "Sod it, I don't need this."
4) When researching the cost of the Thorn + Rohloff, I realized I could get two well-equipped Surly LHT's for the price of my Raven. Neither one, however, would give me the low gear-inch setup I have with my 38 x 17 Rohloff, or the option for a lower-still lowest gear with a 36 x17 (see above re: ease of changing ratios) while still giving me ready use of suitable intermediate gears. Without getting into too many numbers, my current setup on my Eclipse is 24 - 26 - 46 at the front, and 12 - 36 at the rear (700 c x 32 tires). This gives me a low gear-inch of 18.3 -- rather higher than the 15.7 on my Raven. I'd like to get a 22T small ring on my Eclipse, BUT, the middle 36 ring works well for at least 80 % of my riding, and I'm not at all sure that my front der would handle the 14-T step-up between the two; while going to a 34T middle ring would mean I lose the flexibility that the 36T ring offers. So, neither of my half-price Surly's would give me the gear ratios I wanted; and, after literally years of irritation from forever maladjusting derailleurs, I bought a Raven-with-Rohloff.
5) No regrets at all, and the Raven is much more comfortable & functional as a touring bike than my Eclipse. The weight, interestingly, is little different: My Eclipse weighs just shy of 30 lbs (with one rear rack, two lights, plastic fenders and a small tool kit), and my Raven about 31 lbs with two racks (F & R) and a handlebar mounting bracket, two lights, alloy fenders, leather mudflaps, and a dyna-hub. The bikes feel very different, because the seating & bars set-up is different, as well as wheel and tire size, and brakes.
Hope this is helpful, though I recognize that riders have different needs, tastes, and interests, not to mention budgets. Good luck in any case.
-
Note:- It is still (!) not possible to ride a Rohloff equipped bike with drop bars as easily nor as sweetly!
Case rested?
Regards,
John
-
Note:- It is still (!) not possible to ride a Rohloff equipped bike with drop bars as easily nor as sweetly!
Case rested?
Regards,
John
Yes it is.
-
A few people noted above that it is easy to change the gear ratios with different chainrings. I use a 16t rear cog. Around home I use a 44t chainring (2.75) on the inner position on a double crank, a bashguard on the outer position. But for touring I put a 44t on the outer position and a 36t on the inner position. That way if I anticipate a few days of steep hills I can drop to the lower range (2.25 ratio). It takes several minutes to add or subtract chain links and readjust the eccentric, but it may be worth the effort to get higher or lower gearing. (I carry several pair of disposable gloves, adjusting the length of chain is not messy that way.)
Note:- It is still (!) not possible to ride a Rohloff equipped bike with drop bars as easily nor as sweetly!
Case rested?
Regards,
John
With a drop bar, I can reach the Rohloff shifter just as fast as I can reach either of my bar end shifters on a derailleur bike. So, the drop bar slows down shifting compared to flat bars but the Rohloff is no slower than bar end shifters on drop bars. It might actually be faster because some derailleur shifts are a two step process of shifting both front and rear. But if you use brifters with drop bars, maybe the Rohloff is slower when you are going fast enough that your chain moves on the cassette almost instantaneously. But, if you are going slow (common when off road riding), as I noted above you might have to travel quite a distance to shift a derailleur system regardless of type of handlebar, in such situations the Rohloff shifts extremely fast compared to derailleur systems.
-
Note:- It is still (!) not possible to ride a Rohloff equipped bike with drop bars as easily nor as sweetly!
Case rested?
Regards,
John
Don't get me wrong john, there is still a place for dérailleur systems. I'm a huge rohloff fan for long distance touring, reliability and low maintenance everyday cycling but it can't compete at the racing end of the spectrum. I imagine a cross over point around audax type riding, anything more sporting and weight becomes relevant, anything less and the rohloff makes a strong case. This is why I'm in two minds about the Mercury. On one hand it sounds like my perfect bike (ignoring the cost for the moment) but for some applications you might want a Mercury for a lighter derailleur bike might be a better option.
-
Probably the best way to get the benefits of the Rohloff but at considerably less cost would be to buy secondhand. Rohloff hubs actually shift better as the miles are put on them. I bought a secondhand Raven Tour this year for less than the price of a new hub. Better to let let somebody else take the initial hit first.
Neil.
-
Probably the best way to get the benefits of the Rohloff but at considerably less cost would be to buy secondhand. Rohloff hubs actually shift better as the miles are put on them. I bought a secondhand Raven Tour this year for less than the price of a new hub. Better to let let somebody else take the initial hit first.
Neil.
I agree, I bought my Raven Tour for £800. Thorn bikes really don't hold their value at all.
-
Hello,
I've owned a RST and a RT. I did not, and do not like either.
I agree that Thorn bikes do not have a good second hand value. I know not why!
Regards,
John
-
i reckon john thorn bike a more connected to the touring end of cycling .mind you its not just thorn bikes sold my bianchi and look for little or nothing.
as for gearing in all my years of cycling i've once had an issus with derailuers.
rohloff i reckon are ok for touring around town ,no place on a road bike but sorry i know we are not talking road bikes just saying. ::)
-
Andrew, IMHO if you're off-roading or dirt-roading, the Rohloff is by far the better option, for all of the reasons mentioned. But if I were you, I'd also look at a Rohloff-design frame (with EBB and vertical dropouts), which will reduce weight (no chain tensioner or torque arm) and increase reliability. Cable guides for the hub are also an issue.
I think SJS are still selling a Raven Enduro 853 frame at a great price (£299). http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-raven-enduro-853-frame-met-silver-with-blue-blue-decals-prod10660/?geoc=au (http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-raven-enduro-853-frame-met-silver-with-blue-blue-decals-prod10660/?geoc=au)
You lose the 29+ wheels, but it'd make a superb bike for your purposes.
Just sayin'...
-
That's a lovely frame. I'm not sure how you'd get the numbers to stack up; unless you were lucky enough to source the major items at a good price. Somehow, it would seem quite sacrilegious to economise with a cheaper hub, brakes, wheels, forks etc. All that said I can just that Enduro following Simeon ( Orme?) on one of his off-road adventures this winter.
Here is a link to the Enduro brochure to give you some idea what parts you might wish to use.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050331180703/http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornEnduroBroHiRes.pdf
The front cover is quite inspiring I find.
Similarly, this one on ebay might inspire you further
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Thorn-Raven-Enduro-853-Reynolds-/271702436692?_trksid=p2054897.l4275
-
ANY 2nd bike doesn't hold its value, not just the Thorn.
Someone feels like having a go at touring buys an extremely expensive bike, doesn't like it and expects to sell it for %20 less.
I bought a 2nd hand RST for almost 1/2 of new and was well pleased. Mainly because we knew it was going to get used for another 15 years.
-
Most bikes you seem to get around 2/3rds of the price back. Thorns seem to be around 1/2, it's a big difference.
-
Second hand value depends quite a bit. For example I bought my first raven tour for £1200 new in 2006. Rohloff s get better with age and hold their value well. I'd have expected to have sold for £900+ based on current prices. I'd view that as an investment. If you buy and sell within a year the drop might be proportionately high.
-
Our local auction house told me that 1/3rd of purchase price is about average for a bike in ok nick.
Unless of course Eddy Merckx rode it and you can prove it, then it may be worth a bit more, he said with wry smile :)
-
Our local auction house told me that 1/3rd of purchase price is about average for a bike in ok nick
Apart from the debate on the relative merits and costing-out of the Rohloff vs derailleur drivetrains, this hefty devaluation of used bikes and my great sentiment toward any good tool (my bikes are indeed tools) is the reason why I rarely sell-on my older bikes. For what I would get for them, there is still residual value to be found in keeping them and riding them only occasionally. It isn't worth selling; a whole nicely working bike might bring half the cost of a frame alone -- if I were lucky.
As for the drivetrain debate and relative worth, all my bikes have derailleurs except for one Sturney-Archer 3-sp U-frame Folder, the Rohloff-equipped Nomad, and a moribund Sachs 3x7 on a Bike Friday I was recently given. Except for the Nomad they are all older bikes, most with 5-6 very thick cogs running on freewheels (and one 7-sp cassette) and similarly thick, non-indexed, hard-anodized chainrings. I get exceptionally good service life from these, but have found to my dismay I can wear through two or three nearly complete 9-sp drivetrains (most-used cassette cogs which are now part of a set and chainrings, plus multiple chains) in a single summer of my riding. Not so the Rohloff. It's longer life means I have already balanced costs and am now making money going forward compared to 9-sp. The increment is not so great compared to my older derailleur drivetrains, which I can keep going by reprofiling and heat-treating worn teeth every several years.
For me, the Rohloff feels more like a return to the "good old days" of long-wearing reliable half-step derailleur gearing. My 36x17 setup duplicates all the midrange gears of my favorite half-step setup but discards the useless higher gears I needed for the combo to work (but never used) while adding several much-valued lower ratios (which I use often while touring in mountainous terrain).
The icing on the cake is the exceptionally low maintenance required. I still clean my Rohloff's chain more often than most (little mascara brushes between the links while on-tour, with wipe-downs to remove grit before reoiling), but I'm spared the need to floss between the cogs and clean the gunk off a derailleur's jockey and tension wheels and I have more ground clearance and no fear of chainsuck in mud or hanger tearoff should the chain ingest a twig or small stick. Yes, my time is valuable, but I have a more Calvinist work ethic that says doing for oneself and working hard are not bad things, with more leisure allowing more projects and tours.
In extreme and continued heavy touring use -- torrential rains, mud, blowing talc-fine alkali dust, ground lava road-grit, snow -- the Rohloff really shines for me. I do have the continuing perception it is slower when coasting (not under drive), though I frequently ride the Nomad on 200km days where interesting detours to fire, timber-harvest and Forest Service roads call me away from pavement. For long day rides and less demanding touring conditions, I'm still happy with my older derailleur drivetrains and find the lighter bikes (key point) they're attached to better suited for 300-400km days in the saddle. A Mercury might change that balance, but I can't afford one. I do think common perception of the Rohloff drivetrain is colored to a degree by the sorts of bicycles they're attached to. Because they are so well suited to touring, Rohloffs are less often seen on lighter go-fast bikes. Also, the Rohloff rotary grip-shifter remains problematic for some drop-bar users because it is not as well-integrated as a derailleur's brifters, though it can be as convenient as bar-end shifters, depending on how it is located.
I think there's a place at the table for both drivetrains, but for the really gnarly stuff when I'm Out There Alone for a Good Long While, the Rohloff is the arrow of choice in my quiverfull of bikes and for me in my use, it especially makes sense compared to the more quick-wearing 9-sp derailleur drivetrains. Given this, I'm sorry to see 1x11 being developed, and would like to see the reintroduction of 3x7 or 3x8 touring-specific setups for the dedicated tourist. Until and unless, I think Rohloff is the way to go for long-lived all-weather touring.
Best,
Dan.
-
Good discussion Dan. I agree that the increasing number of cogs on a cassette over time is not much of an improvement and is possibly a detriment for touring.
On the touring bike I built up in 2004, I could have gone with an 8 or 9 speed. I chose 8. I wanted the wider chain, I did not know if it would last longer but I thought it might. I also wanted wider spacing between the rear cogs, that means that the rear shifter stays in adjustment better. I used Sram 11/32 cassette. If I went with a 9 speed instead of 8 I would have gotten 24 and 28 tooth cogs, an 8 speed instead has a 26. The other 7 cogs on an 8 speed are the same as on the 9 speed. Thus, there is not much difference in gearing. I was so happy with my gearing that when I buillt up my Sherpa in 2010 I used identical 8 speed gearing.
-
Hi Andrew!
From today's entry on your linked blog, it looks like you've decided to pass on the Rohloff for now.
No worries.
If at some point you later decide you want one, the frame you'll be using will later accept a Rohloff instead and you could move the derailleur drivetrain on to another project. A friend did that about a year ago with a frame capable of accepting both drivetrains, swapping-in the derailleur setup from another bike to get things going, then swapping back to make the first frame salable when he later acquired a Rohloff for the newer frame.
Best wishes on your project, and the many adventures that await it on completion,
Dan.