Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Rohloff Internal Hub Gears => Topic started by: jankremer on July 27, 2013, 12:53:44 PM
-
Hi,
I'm looking for a new bicycle and one of the choices is a Rohloff internal or external gear mech. Google and various bicycle shops have different answers and I can't find one comprehensive list with pro's and cons. Are you abel to help me?
So far:
Internal gear mech
Pro's:
- all in the hub / airplane proof / no external component attached to the frame and therefore nothing can break during transport
- less sensitive to dust and dirt => Is this true? I read somewhere the opposite...
Con's:
- internal cabling routing with sharp corners making the cable break eventually / difficult to repair en route
- more difficult to disconnect and replace cables
External gear mech
Pro's
- always possible to change gear even when cables are broken
- easy maintenance / remove of wheel
- use of standard cables
- less sensitive to dust and dirt => Is this true? I read somewhere the opposite...
Con's
- external component attached which might be damaged during transport / airplane
What am I missing? Please an you share your experience so I can make a better decision?
Much appreciated!
Regards
Jan
-
I have a Thorn Nomad with external cable box and my wife has a Thorn RST with internal gear cables. I have yet to have to do much to either apart from removing the rear wheel on each bike in order to change rear sprockets, and on the RST to repair a rear wheel puncture. I found both easy to remove the rear wheel, but re contacting the cable connectors on the RST required more effort than re attaching the external box on the Nomad.
I hope this rather limited experience that I have helps you towards making a decision.
Don
-
I have the internal version. If I were choosing I think I would go external as the cables are fully enclosed. The internal is fine and I have had no problems but changing the internal cable is fiddly. You can change gear with the internal without the cable but you need a spanner to rotate to your gear of choice. The only disadvantage of the external I have heard of is getting the exbox bashed.
-
Hi Jan, and welcome to the Thorn Cycling Forum!
You've outlined the qualities of each sort of Rohloff shifter very well, and I'd say in practice one is as easy to use as the other.
However, carefully reading the Rohloff website, they do recommend the external shifter for global/expeditionary touring and indicate it is more trouble-free in that use. It does use a single, constant-diameter cable throughout its run, it is fully enclosed, and it can be manually shifted with an 8mm box wrench, so that is probably the basis for Rohloff's recommendations.
I run the external shifter on my Nomad Mk2 and have found it to work flawlessly. The only demerit I can think of is shift effort is relatively high and supposedly a bit higher than with the internal shifter (which I have not tried). The external shift box should be lubed periodically per Rohloff's recommendations, a step many people tend to forget. I pumped mine full of Phil Wood grease, which so far has been a successful effort.
For air travel, the EX shifter is tucked well under the chainstay, unlike a derailleur. I suppose it could be bent or otherwise damaged, but the likelihood is much lower than it would be for a derailleur.
I hope this helps.
-
Yo, Jan.
If you approach the Rohloff cabling choice from an engineering rather than a historic-cycling viewpoint, the answer is obvious. The internal cabling arrangement is a throwback to the road-bike practice of part-exposed cables. It is suitable for old road frames being converted to Rohloff use. It's a pain to fit new cables and a bigger pain to disassemble beside the road if a cable should break, especially if the cables have corroded into the connectors; little grubscrew are actively rider-hostile on a bike! But it makes roadies feel comfortable with the appearance of the bike because the cables run along the top tube and down the chain stay, and it comforts them to believe that the bare wires for part of the run save five grams of weight.
The external gearbox is a proper blank sheet engineering extension of the Rohloff principle. Note that I don't say "solution". The open cables is a "solution" to a question that shouldn't have been asked (what would make roadies happy? how can the gearbox be fitted to existing frames that are quite unsuitable for it?). The external cables are fully enclosed for their entire run. They end in a box that is removed with a thumbscrew when you want to remove the wheel.
Rohloff provides mountings to the hub to fit the EXT clickbox behind the hub and sticking up into the air -- for those foolish enough to continue running the cables in the traditional place. This position could theoretically be more vulnerable, though I'd ask your informants for examples as I am not aware of any EXT boxes being smashed on the hefty steel plate to which it fixes. (In my opinion, its "vulnerability" even in this position, is BS.)
However, Rohloff also provides mountings to the hub for a very straight run under the bottom tube and chain stay and directly into the clickbox tucked out of the way underneath the hub and chain stay. This is an ideal run that suits the Rohloff. I don't see any bends on Rohloff cables that are thoughtfully installed on purpose-made bikes which are sharper than cable-bends on any other bike; it's the desperate rearguard argument of people trying to protect a convention long outworn.
I don't know why anyone would recommend the internal gear mech on a Rohloff. It makes no modern sense on the sort of bike on which you would use a Rohloff gearbox, except to roadies, and even for them it more of a psychological security blanket, more about appearances than an engineering necessity.
I believe I was the first to notice (or at least to say out loud) that the service requirement of the EXT gearmech of 500km is excessive for on-road use, and the first to pump it full of Phil's grease as an (ongoing) experiment to determine whether the service interval can be extended to the same 5000km as the gearbox oil change. Presently it seems like Dan will reach the 5k first and report before I can, but I expect the answer to be a resounding "yes", even in the very demanding conditions in which Dan tours. In any case, even if you are an obsessive stickler for "the rules", and service the EXT box every 500km, it is, literally, a 10 second operation: put the rotary control in top gear, undo the thumbscrew, pull the EXT box off, give it a wipe with a tissue, give the bikeside brass fittings a wipe with the tissue, squirt in new grease, push the EXT box back on, twist the thumbscrew. It takes longer to read the description than to do it.
Andre Jute
-
Hi Andre!
A couple augmentations to your excellent response. This position could theoretically be more vulnerable, though I'd ask you informants for examples as I am not aware of any EXT boxes being smashed on the hefty steel plate to which it fixes. (In my opinion, its "vulnerability" even in this position, is BS.)
I did recently come across a photograph of an EX shifter mounting tab that had been bent inward in a fall across a log. The owner said he simply bent it back with a wrench and all as fine, though the shifter worked even with the bent tab. I will post the photo if I can find it back again. I believe I was the first to notice (or at least to say out loud) that the service requirement of the EXT gearmech of 500km is excessive for on-road use, and the first to pump it full of Phil's grease as an (ongoing) experiment to determine whether the service interval can be extended to the same 5000km as the gearbox oil change.
Correct! The difference between our two experiments is I removed the cover from the EX shift-box and filled the entire interior with Phil Grease, whereas you pumped yours in from the inside face, after carefully removing external evidences of the previous lube. What I am finding is the shifting action is smoother and a bit lower in effort than before I filled the shift-box cavity, and there has been no unwanted grease migration except for the expected continuous lubrication provided at the geared interface. It seems to be a success to this point, but I will continue to monitor and report as time goes by. I'm looking forward to your reports as well, Andre. I can say, the almost-continuous running in the lower range during my recent test-tour has loosened up the hub considerably, and the wheel freewheels very nicely indeed.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Found it, Andre, and right here on our Forum: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=1457.0
Good example of what can happen in a fall from a garden table onto a wall.
Best,
Dan.
-
I believe I was the first to notice (or at least to say out loud) that the service requirement of the EXT gearmech of 500km is excessive for on-road use, and the first to pump it full of Phil's grease as an (ongoing) experiment to determine whether the service interval can be extended to the same 5000km as the gearbox oil change. Presently it seems like Dan will reach the 5k first and report before I can, but I expect the answer to be a resounding "yes", even in the very demanding conditions in which Dan tours. In any case, even if you are an obsessive stickler for "the rules", and service the EXT box every 500km, it is, literally, a 10 second operation: put the rotary control in top gear, undo the thumbscrew, pull the EXT box off, give it a wipe with a tissue, give the bikeside brass fittings a wipe with the tissue, squirt in new grease, push the EXT box back on, twist the thumbscrew. It takes longer to read the description than to do it.
Umm.... I forgot any service instruction for the EX box and just rode the damn bike. It has now done some 17,000 kms and in that time I have replaced the lube in the EX box maybe twice :-X
When I have removed it, it is more to clean the seeping hub oil and gunge off it. The internals are always well-greased and operating smoothly.
500km servicing sounds extremely conservative, even when riding harsh dirt tracks in a desert environment.
-
Found it, Andre, and right here on our Forum: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=1457.0
Good heavens, three examples! And in each of them the EXT box survived and the plate was bent. So it isn't the EXT box which is vulnerable but its mounting. That explains why I like the mounting under the chainstay for the EXT box: it also takes the plate to the more protected position.
Interesting to note that one of the posters didn't even notice that anything was wrong until he heard a slight sound. Imagine if you dropped a derailleur system onto a wall from a table...
Thanks, Dan.
Andre Jute
-
Umm.... I forgot any service instruction for the EX box and just rode the damn bike. It has now done some 17,000 kms and in that time I have replaced the lube in the EX box maybe twice :-X
When I have removed it, it is more to clean the seeping hub oil and gunge off it. The internals are always well-greased and operating smoothly.
500km servicing sounds extremely conservative, even when riding harsh dirt tracks in a desert environment.
You're such a wrecker, Il Padrone! We're standing in a queue before Bernd Rohloff's study door to dob you in!
Looks like you've beaten everyone to a result: the service requirement for the EXT box of 500km is indeed "extremely conservative" by at least a factor of 37.
LOL.
I wonder if perhaps the requirement was made with wet environments -- beaches or streams in off road riding -- in mind, such as the Rohloff box was originally designed for.
Andre Jute
-
I believe I was the first to notice (or at least to say out loud) that the service requirement of the EXT gearmech of 500km is excessive for on-road use, and the first to pump it full of Phil's grease as an (ongoing) experiment to determine whether the service interval can be extended to the same 5000km as the gearbox oil change.
Huh??? I'm somewhere way north of 20,000km and I've never serviced the EXT box. Crikey, didn't even realise it was a requirement. Then again, I'm still on the original cables so I've not really had any call to start servicing anything Rohloff related beyond the annual oil change.
One of these years I'm going to have to read that service manual.
-
Anyone else want to let it all hang out?
-
Blimey, 600 km done now since new, I too have overlooked the service interval of the EX box. Although it sounds like Im going to be OK. However knowing my luck I will have the one that seizes at 601 km, might just have a peek inside to see if alls OK.
Don
-
I don't think anyone's mentioned.. (apologies if they have and I missed it)... Disc brakes. External box for disc brakes, should you want them.
-
I changed the internal gear cables on my Rohloff as preventative maintenance at 12,000 miles. It took about an hour first time and following the instructions in the Rohloff manual. The old cables looked perfectly ok to me, I couldn't see any evidence of thinning or fraying.
Speed of wheel changing - I estimate it takes 1, or if your fingers are really cold, 2 seconds per bayonet connector to undo the shifter cables. No grubscrews or anything that needs tools at the roadside at all. Hobbes, that's a bigger pain than changing the cables? You're doing something wrong, or you don't realise the cables actually terminate in a bayonet connector. Or maybe you meant changing the internal cables at the roadside? Well, that would be a pain, I'd be interested in hearing how many have people have needed to do it. I just don't get the assertion that taking the wheel off an internally cabled Rohloff bike is in anyway difficult or tedious.
Just to add, the corrugated sheath that zip-ties around the shifter cables, on the wheel side of the bayonet connector, isn't disturbed during a wheel changed and is a good barrier to dust ingress.
-
Ian
We have a tandem with the External box and I have internal routing on my Raven Tour. I have to say that we have found that the box does make wheel removal and replacement much easier. The main problem with the internal gear arrangement is getting the cables back together again after replacing the wheel! Fortunately some kind person on this forum posted a brilliant tip - keep a clothes peg handy! The peg fits round the cable and provides a really useful extra grip for bringing the cables together again.
When I ordered the Tour, the question of which arrangement to have never came up - certainly I never mentioned it! If ordering again I would go for the box because it has proven to be so simple to use. In terms of appearance it's unobtrusive and as was said by Andre earlier I really don't mind the enclosed cables.
Rob
-
Speed of wheel changing - I estimate it takes 1, or if your fingers are really cold, 2 seconds per bayonet connector to undo the shifter cables. No grubscrews or anything that needs tools at the roadside at all. Hobbes, that's a bigger pain than changing the cables? You're doing something wrong, or you don't realise the cables actually terminate in a bayonet connector. Or maybe you meant changing the internal cables at the roadside? Well, that would be a pain, I'd be interested in hearing how many have people have needed to do it. I just don't get the assertion that taking the wheel off an internally cabled Rohloff bike is in anyway difficult or tedious.
Sorry about that. In the cutting and editing I seem to have run two sentences about different subjects together. The words "to fix a flat" shouldn't have appeared where I was talking about cable replacement. Ouch! Sorry! I've fixed it now. Thanks for the heads-up.
Andre Jute
-
Ah, that makes more sense.
To the OP, I'd say:
If you're not particularly weight or price sensitive, get the EX. In theory you might gain a few percentage points of durability. Whichever you choose, after a wheel change, you'll spend more time relocating the brake noodles and confirming safe brake operation than you will reconnecting the gear cables.
-
Hi all,
Thanks for all your insights, much appreciated.
When it comes to design principles I agree with Hobbes that for the internal gear mech the internal cabling arrangement looks like a design flaw and is not up to days standards. Removing the rear wheel seems to be less convenient and disk breaks are not possible.
However, I remove my rear wheel seldom and for trekking I prefer conventional v-brakes. As pointed out, EX requires a bit of maintenance, but that's part of life on a bicycle, isn't it.
As Joatamon stated, by choosing the external gear, I might gain a few percentage points of durability. From what you all posted, I understand that if the bike is specifically designed for internal gear (such as the Raven) or external gear (like the Nomad) both should be good for many kilometers.
Choosing internal or external may also depend on other bicycle preferences; so far I'm opting for a new Raven which has a internal gear mech...
Again, thanks for your insights!
Regards
Jan
-
Hi Jan!
This explanation by Thorn's designer, Andy Blance, might be helpful in making your decision:
ROHLOFF GEAR CABLES EXPLAINED (Nov2005, reprinted 10Sep2006) Internal vs External
http://web.archive.org/web/20060910054037/http://www.sjscycles.com/thornwebsite/rohloffcables.html
In practical terms, the internal cabling works as well as the external cabling in most instances.
Best,
Dan.
-
HI ALL
Dan is right on my 1st Speedhub it started off with inner cable routing and I only got the hub changed because on my 2nd bike had disc brakes only (sad).
For me the inner rooted cable changed better, and is lighter too.
I how have only had EX Box change on my new hub and with all the small changes to Rolhoff Speedhubs over the years the gear changing is great how (riding with the new hub is like night andday) far far better then my old 10,000+ km hub.
How if the 1st hub where like how in 2013 all the testers from Mags would only have said good things about them and Rohloffs would be on more bikes.
How if I had a newer Rohloff I would have taking it to Africa and save my time servicing and cleaning my STD geared Cyclo X bike. would have had more time to look around...
:-)
Pete
-
My internal shifter hub is on it's original cables after 7 years, I've bought the quick change kit but it may well never get used as I'd like to get the hub changed to use with disc brakes. As to reconnecting the bayonet connectors if you are struggling with the second one undo the first and reverse the order you are trying to connect them. I've no idea why but this has always worked for me and if I remember correctly was a tip from the forum.
-
I'd like to get the hub changed to use with disc brakes.
Hi Dave!
This means you'll be converting to the EX shift-box? If so -- and if it is a Raven Tour or Sport Tour -- how will you handle the cable routing?
Just curious, as this same issue comes up from time to time and I'm thinking it might be helpful for others contemplating the same change.
Best,
Dan.
-
Somewhere ??? on the web is a photo essay showing a full drillium Rohloff lightening project on an EX box disc hub. The project involved dismantling the hub and weight relieving any internals that could bear it.
However the weight savings were modest in relation to the saving made by converting to an internal shifter which cost almost nothing and had no reliability penalty ::)
I think the chap also had a titanium sprocket because he liked high cost weight savings as well.... he did everything.
As for running internal shifter with a disc, all that was required was a repositioning the cable adjuster stop away from the wheel so that the cable ran perpendicular to the hub axle, thus clearing the disc...... I expect cable slack was more critical, and a disc with a smooth circumference would be wise...
PS when you drop an EX box bike the disc stops the mech from bending even further inwards, so you could say an EX box needs a disc for support ;D. Don't ask how I know :P Easily corrected with a rubber mallet ;)
Happy days
Ian
-
Looking at the current Thorn Brochures I note that EX box is used on:
Nomad
Mercury
Twin Raven tandem and
Step through version of the Raven
The standard Raven has the cables running under the top tube and uses the internal fitting.
FWIW
Mike