Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Rohloff Internal Hub Gears => Topic started by: Danneaux on January 20, 2016, 04:45:24 am
-
Hi All!
As some of you have kindly told me, the original thread on Rohloff splined sprockets is coming up blank on the third page -- rather, it shows a server error and posts beyond the second page are not appearing.
I'm starting this second thread on the same topic so posts can be made while we look into things. I'll notify Adrian and hopefully if/when the original thread is recovered, I can merge the two into one topic.
As always, thanks for letting me know about any anomalies. I had found this one myself, but it is helpful to have confirmation.
All the best,
Dan.
Thorn Cycling Forum Administrator
-
Thank you Dan.
I deduce that the reason Rohloff have increased the chainline on their new splined sprocket & carrier system to 58mm is that there isn't clearance between the hub casing and the chain side plates when using 13 & 14 tooth sprockets at the old 54mm chainline. This is the same reason why the threaded 13 tooth sprockets have a 58mm chainline causing them to be asymetrical and therefore unable to be reversed.
-
Inportant information
For those wanting to use a Hebie Chainglider.
Rohloff are discontinuing sale and production of the existing threaded drive cogs.
From now on all cogs will be their new system of Splined Cog & Carrier.
As Dave Whittle said:
A very good point and may well be correct. If the Chainglider is placed 3mm further outboard it will be placed clear of any contact with the Rohloff shell. But as mine on the Nomad sits hard against the seat stay it's all a bit academic - a 3mm wider chainline will prevent use of the Chainglider that I now value highly.
Best stock up on sprockets now, as this isn't going to be an option the new sprocket replaces the existing in all cases and stocks on the old sprockets are being run down.
The new cogs increase the chainling to 58mm making it too wide for use with a chainglider on most existing frames as there is insufficient room between chainline and seatstay.
In answer to the following emailed question to service@rohloff.de
"I have been reading about your new Rohloff Splined Sprockets and Splined Carrier. I have heard that the old threaded sprockets will be phased out and will no longer be available when existing stocks run out. Is that correct?
If it is correct, it will mean that the Hebie Chainglider much loved by many Rohloff Speedhub users, will no longer be usable on most/many existing frames. The extra 4mm added to the chainline leaves no room for the Chainglider."
I received the following answer:
"You are correct. The new splined sprockets will replace the older thread on style as stocks run out. A new batch of threaded sprockets will not be produced.
The splined sprockets move the chainline out by 3mm to bring the rear SPEEDHUB sprocket into alignment with the outer chainring position of modern cranksets.
The wider chainline will make fitting a chainglider tight in some frames but that is irrelevent because the new splined are constructed without the seal lip which current Hebie Chaingliders requires for mounting. As such there is currently no chainglider available from Hebie that will function with the new splined sprockets. Hebie have had to re-think their chainglider numerous times over the years due to poor design and I regret I am currently unaware as to whether Hebie plan to do this again for the new splined sprockets, or drop it from their product catalog completely."
Unfortunately, what I saw as a possible expanding of Rohloff/Chainglider compatible gear ratios, seems to be in actuality a possible end to Rohloff/Chainglider compatibility completely. :(
Is it true the the Chainglider Rohloff compatible rear end sits on the seal lip of the threaded rohloff cog?
Better stock up before the rush.
-
The new Splined carrier could be machined to have the same 54mm chainline as the theaded system if cogs below 15 tooth count are not used.
A surface like the current seal lip would have to be added to use with current Hebie Chainglider rear ends.
-
The splined sprockets move the chainline out by 3mm to bring the rear SPEEDHUB sprocket into alignment with the outer chainring position of modern cranksets.
This seems to re-open the debate as to whether the new Chainline is 57mm or 58mm. ??? :-\
-
The splined sprockets move the chainline out by 3mm to bring the rear SPEEDHUB sprocket into alignment with the outer chainring position of modern chainsets.
I have my chain on the middle chainring position and a Thorn chainguard ring on the outer position, so that will no longer be an option either if ideal chainline is desired.
Seems like a bit of a backward step to solve an issue that wasn't really an issue (changing sprockets more easily), but creating other issues.
-
I suspect that Rohloff in developing a new splined carrier did it with (1) the most simplified engineering that was practical (2) while minimizing manufacturing costs and (3) without significant reduction in reliability or durability. Thus, I am confident that maintaining chainline was of little importance to them. I would be surprised if anyone on the engineering staff ever initiated a discussion on that as long as the chain would not rub on any frame parts. I am an engineer and that is the way I would have done it.
Derailleur bikes commonly are used more than 5mm outside of an ideal chainline. I have commented before that when I built up my bike I included a chainline error of 5mm for personal reasons. I am sure it reduces my chain life a little, but I am not going to let that be the driving factor. But for me personally, if I switch to the new hardware my chainline error becomes 9mm, which I see as more significant. In my case it would either mean needing a longer bottom bracket or moving my chainring to the outer position, losing the bash guard.
For the chain glider crowd, it is problematic too.
But I will not fault Rohloff for doing it this way, it would be more costly to design and construct a carrier system that maintained the same chainline and as a manufacturer, they have to look at those issues too.
-
In a careless and reckless letter, service@rohloff.de wrote to our own MacSpud:
"The wider chainline will make fitting a chainglider tight in some frames but that is irrelevent because the new splined are constructed without the seal lip which current Hebie Chaingliders requires for mounting. As such there is currently no chainglider available from Hebie that will function with the new splined sprockets. Hebie have had to re-think their chainglider numerous times over the years due to poor design and I regret I am currently unaware as to whether Hebie plan to do this again for the new splined sprockets, or drop it from their product catalog completely."
No, it isn't "irrelevent" (sic) that the redesigned Rohloff sprocket, soon to be the only Rohloff sprocket, will cause the chain or a Chainglider if fitted to interfere with the frame. That's careless of customers with tightfitting frames and/or a preference for Chaingliders.
It gets worse. When customers liked the Hebie Chainglider, designed for hub gearboxes with vastly larger markets than Rohloff, so much that they fitted them to the Rohloff, which then got in the way of the Chainglider and wore ridges (a perfectly valid alternative view to the one in the quotation given above), Hebie redesigned the rear end of the Chainglider to suit the Rohloff. The correct way to look at this is that Hebie, a large firm, did a smaller one, Rohloff, a very substantial favour, in accommodating a few Rohloff customers who were never going to be a major profit centre. But some insensitive idiot at Rohloff describes this in writing as "Hebie have had to re-think their chainglider numerous times over the years due to poor design", as if Hebie should have designed their Chainglider from the beginning to take account of the peculiarities of the Rohloff gearbox. In fact what Hebie did was to bend over backwards to adapt to changes in the shapes and dimensions of any and all hub manufacturers with a market presence that justified it, plus Rohloff. It would serve Rohloff right if Hebie now said, "Look, those mudpluggers don't want us, so to perdition with them." But it won't serve Rohloff's minority of non-mudplugger customers (tourers) who like the Chainglider well at all -- in fact, it would serve them very badly indeed. That is what I mean by a reckless letter.
Did you get this fellow's name, MacSpud? When my Chainglider no longer fits my Rohloff because of Rohloff's carelessness of customers and their reckless offense to Hebie, I want to send him the dry cleaning bill for the oily bottoms of my trousers.
"Irrelevent" (sic), indeed... This whole affair is very unlike Rohloff. I bet we'll discover that the letter to MacSpud was written by a junior exceeding his authority or an engineer (widely known to be an insensitive breed) overextending his grasp of English. I certainly hope so. But if not, my answer is above, and here is the executive summary:
As both a Rohloff and a Chainglider customer, I hope this post makes it quite clear to Hebie that service@rohloff.de doesn't speak for me. I adore Hebie. And their Chainglider is one of the best products to come on the market for bicycles in the last couple of decades.
-
No, it isn't "irrelevent" (sic) that the redesigned Rohloff sprocket, soon to be the only Rohloff sprocket, will cause the chain or a Chainglider if fitted to interfere with the frame.That's careless of customers with tightfitting frames and/or a preference for Chaingliders.
Andre,
I totally agree. I was amazed by the tone of the reply. It was because of the tone that I decided to post a copy of the reply, otherwise I would have given the gist in my own words.
But I will not fault Rohloff for doing it this way, it would be more costly to design and construct a carrier system that maintained the same chainline and as a manufacturer, they have to look at those issues too.
mickeg,
On the contrary, to construct a carrier system that maintained the same chainline would be very easy, all they would have to do is not add the 4mm. The reason they added 4mm to the chainline was to accommodate 13 & 14 tooth sprockets without the chain side plates contacting the hub casing.
-
It sounds like he was saying that the chainglider would not work with the splined system at all. And therefore I think he was saying that the change in chainline was "irrelevant" to that discussion.
Maybe he is not a native english speaker, if so perhaps a native english speaker might have chosen a different word.
-
...
mickeg,
On the contrary, to construct a carrier system that maintained the same chainline would be very easy, all they would have to do is not add the 4mm. The reason they added 4mm to the chainline was to accommodate 13 & 14 tooth sprockets without the chain side plates contacting the hub casing.
Yes it would have been possible to have done it in a way that maintained chainline, but this is how I would have done it too.
http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_splined_c178ea2ae6.png
-
What a cock-up !!! >:(
Not happy Jan. Wonder whether SJS now have any threaded sprockets still in stock. I will need a supply eventually.
-
Is it true the the Chainglider Rohloff compatible rear end sits on the seal lip of the threaded rohloff cog?
No. This part of the repliy I do not quite understand. My Chainglider has a good 4-5mm space from the hub on the inside. On the outside it does (sort of) ride on the lip of the sprocket, but this is in no way essential to the fitting of the Chainglider - it is held in place mainly by the spacing and position over the whole drivetrain.
Better stock up before the rush.
Planning my next order as we speak. Maybe all of this is just a sales pitch to help SJS along ???
-
I f the previous 13 & 14 sprockets ran on the hub with a 54mm chainline, why is it not possible for them to run with the new splined sprocket plus carrier ??? Surely in either case, if the chain is going to rub the hub on one, it would be doing so with the other design ???
-
I f the previous 13 & 14 sprockets ran on the hub with a 54mm chainline, why is it not possible for them to run with the new splined sprocket plus carrier...
Pete,
The current screw-on 13t sprocket requires a 58mm chainline (Rohloff say 59mm here: http://www.rohloff.de/en/service/faqs/index.html ), not 54mm as with the other screw-on cogs.
The reason is the small diameter of the 13, which could allow the chain (or at least debris attached to it) to rub on the hub shell. By offsetting it (it has a deeper flange), there are no clearance problems...but it is non-reversible. The larger diameter cogs elevate the chain safely above the hub shell and have not required the offset.
The new splined carrier system has rationalized the offset so all cogs regardless of diameter will fit the same carrier, a design failsafe.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Wonder whether SJS now have any threaded sprockets still in stock.
I just ordered a spare 17T threaded sprocket (in stock), to be picked up at SJSC when I visit Zumerzet a couple of weeks hence.
So many variables at play:
> There's about 3-4 mm of clearance between my 'glider and the inner surface of my driveside seat stay. Hard to measure closely, but I think I could just manage another 3 mm of chainline with my current frame & 'glider. Might have to do a bit more delicate shaving & filing of the plastic to ensure a 1 mm of clearance (thus achieving in spite of myself, the Jute/Kranich standard of excellence.)
> Then again, my current sprocket shows no noticeable wear after ~5500 kms over 2 seasons. How many seasons/kms can I reasonably expect from the current one?
> Factor in, say, at least another 10-15 years of riding similar annual mileage -- maybe I'll need another (threaded) sprocket, some 8 - 10 years hence. Almost certainly the changeover will happen in a peaceful warm&dry workshop, not on tour somewhere, if for no other reason than a monster great chain whip would not fall readily to hand.
> Fitting a splined sprocket might well mean ditching the 'glider, or waiting for Hebie to make an adapted 'glider; and would require a different bottom bracket. (Of course, the current one may need to be replaced before the sprocket wears out.)
Gaaaah! I can't stand it any longer: Keep the current setup, buy a threaded spare, and future-proof The Sprocket Question for as long as I can ride the bike.
If anyone asks for an example of being nibbled to death by ducks, show them this thread.
-
I do not use the chain glider, I am not going to bother stocking up. When I eventually need a new sprocket, if the 16T thread on ones are no longer available I will just get the new one and if necessary a longer bottom bracket spindle to correct the chainline.
But if I see any clearance priced thread on 16T sprockets later, I might get one or two. I would not be surprised if the current stock of thread on sprockets at some retailers goes on sale when the new ones come out.
-
Thanks for the clarification re. the 13 & 15t sprocket fit, Dan. However I do not see why Rohloff could not make one version of the carrier for 13/15t users, and a different carrier with the normal chainline for 16/17t users. Simple solution that doesn't too much contradict their 'engineering principles' and still allows most to use their Chaingliders. Easy? Just too easy for the boffins to think of ::)
My Chainglider on the Nomad Mk2 is hard up against the RHS seatstay - zero option for a wider chainline.
Just ordered a selection of thread-on sprockets to last me (and the wife - if I convert her to a Raven frame and Chainglider) for at least 10-15 years. ;)
-
If anyone asks for an example of being nibbled to death by ducks, show them this thread.
Except in Australia, where there is probably a duck with a lethally venomous tooth on its beak. (For those hitherto blissfully innocent, 17 of the 20 most lethally venomous/poisonous animals in the world live in Australia, and that's not even counting the Ustase -- Yugoslave terrorists -- or Muslim terrorists. There's a reason us ockers are hard men!)
My 16T sprocket has 8600km on it without signs of wear. I don't think I'm sticking my neck out predicting that yours and mine will both last at least quadruple the 5500km you have now, double on the first side, and another 11K when reversed, 22K in all. I have a 16T spare, and I'll lay in another one when I order new tyres and tubes; that will see me out and probably the next owner too.
However, after thinking about it carefully, I've decided that the convenience and cleanliness of the Chainglider is far more important to the way I use my bike than the Rohloff gearbox. There is nothing that comes remotely close to replacing the Chainglider -- see
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2233.msg10717#msg10717 --
while replacing the Rohloff is now not only possible but might be a technically interesting journey. There's the Pinion, whose Porsche credentials impress me as a longtime Porsche driver, and there is the NuVinci, whose lesser range and CVT engineering perfectly suits my central electric motor, and whose optional automatic "gearshift" adds to its intrinsic strength by obviating high-torque jerks. So I already know where I'll go if the tone of that letter from Rohloff to MacSpud presages a change of attitude by Rohloff to customers.
Executive summary for the non-Anglophone: I'd rather give up the Rohloff than the Chainglider.
I'm rather partial to Peking Duck.
-
.........no problem if you go for a belt drive...........
-
.........no problem if you go for a belt drive...........
Even more incompatible with my Thorn Nomad Mk2 (I'm not cutting a break in my frame just to be able to use a belt) :-\
-
.........no problem if you go for a belt drive...........
For around home use, I use a 44T chainring. For hilly touring take out a few chain links use a 36T chainring. Both with 16T Rohloff sprocket.
That would be a problem for a belt drive.
-
I received a follow up email from Rohloff, the body of which follows:
a thread on Thorns cycling forum has been brought to my attention and I would like to make a few points based on the questions raised as well as my previous email reply to you.
As one of the replies in the thread suggested, I used the word "irrelevant" in my last reply, with regard to the fact that the wider chainline alone was not the reason why the Hebie Chainglider would no longer fit and thus that point was irrelevant to the subject of frame clearance. I would like to apologize if my word choice misconstrued the point I was trying to make.
Further talks with Hebie since my last email reply do seem to show their positive interest in redesigning the Chainglider to accommodate our new splines sprockets - although this will most likely mean the Chainglider will rest completely on the chain as with other systems and as such will reduce system efficiency a little further. When, and indeed if this revised product will be made available is however still not certain. I am sure Hebie will publish these details once finalized (as will we on our various web-based platforms).
The original sprockets lie almost flush against the sprocket side seal and as such needed to be placed further out to accommodate a bedstop on the splined carrier to prevent the sprockets rubbing against the seal face. A wider chainline was unfortunately unavoidable when designing a carrier to accommodate splined sprockets.
I myself (a 15 year long Rohloff employee) will be exhibiting Rohloff products at the London Bike Show next month on the ISON Distribution booth. If you or any of your fellow forum members have the time to come along and visit, then I will be more than happy to show you the various new products and talk through the reasons why these have been designed as they are.
It's good to Know that Hebie are interested in redesigning the Chainglider to accommodate the new splined sprockets.
Unfortunately the new chainline will most likely make a chainglider unusable for most existing Thorn frames (and many other brand frames, for that matter) which can use a Chainglider with the existing 54mm chainline. For a Chainglider to be usable with them, it would be Rohloff that has to redesign the splined carrier.
Are any of you thinking of visiting the London Bike Show?
-
Are any of you thinking of visiting the London Bike Show?
Now that's more like it! That's the Rohloff we know and love. You're wasted on cycling, Iain; you shoulda been a diplomat: Lord MacSpud of the Congress of Vienna!
HEBIE'S INTENTIONS VIS A VIS THE CHAINGLIDER AND THE NEW ROHLOFF SPROCKET
I'm particularly glad to hear that "Hebie since my last email reply do seem to show their positive interest in redesigning the Chainglider to accommodate our new splines sprockets", but my joy is altruistic, for those whose bikes have more space in their rear triangle. It won't fit my bike. There just isn't the width.
HOW THE CHAINGLIDER WORKS
I'm also happy to discover from an authoritative source how the Chainglider works with the Rolloff -- the back end rides on the lip of the threaded sprocket and holds the Chainglider clear of the chain, which accounts for the Chainglider inside being so innocent of chain oil. Also interesting that the Rohloff-specific Chainglider apparently causes less drag than the generic kind for cheaper boxes, which rides on the chain.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT OUR VIEWPOINT
Moving on to practical politicking, if a forum member were to take up the invitation to speak to a Rohloff representative at the London show, what do we want him/her/it to say? Besides the man from Rohloff, who issued the invitation, there might also be someone from Hebie, so another opportunity opens up. Could I suggest you copy the text below and add your own numbered items.
AGENDA FOR THE MAN FROM ROHLOFF
1. We love Rohloff, of course.
2. The very minimum Rohloff should do to keep faith with customers is to maintain the spinner sprocket in production at the present high quality so that customers' expensive frames aren't made obsolete by a component manufacturer making a hostile specification change. This business of stopping manufacture of the threaded sprocket isn't just contrary to existing customers' interests but to the whole Rohloff ethos of keeping the gearbox working forever. If you can't get consumable parts for a component that continue to fit to and work with preexisting machinery, the component itself instantly becomes surplus to requirements.
3. As has been demonstrated, the Hebie Chainglider is important to some Rohloff owners. We would appreciate it if Rohloff would facilitate Hebie's production of not only a Chainglider for the splined sprockets, but for a wider variety of chainrings that work with existing and future Rohloff-fit Chainglider back pieces.
4. Rohloff has entirely overlooked the roadie market (for instance to reduce maintenance on winter training bikes), which finds a 54mm tread factor (Q) undesirable and a 58mm Q unacceptable. They demand a narrower Q, say 46mm.
5.
AGENDA FOR THE MAN FROM HEBIE
1. We love the Chainglider. We're big boosters of it.
2. The Rohloff gearbox for practical purposes lasts forever, so the threaded sprocket sizes will constitute a market for Chaingliders for many years yet.
3. Some of us would love to love the Chainglider but Hebie doesn't make a suitable chainring cover to work with the existing Rohloff 15-17T back end. (Some specific sizes like a 36T front end, for which we know there is a demand, could be mentioned.) The lowest sprocket ratio Rohloff permits is currently 1.9.
4.
-
Well said, Andre.
("London Bike Show", eh? So that's what LBS means!)
-
AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT OUR VIEWPOINT
Moving on to practical politicking, if a forum member were to take up the invitation to speak to a Rohloff representative at the London show, what do we want him/her/it to say? Besides the man from Rohloff, who issued the invitation, there might also be someone from Hebie, so another opportunity opens up. Could I suggest you copy the text below and add your own numbered items.
AGENDA FOR THE MAN FROM ROHLOFF
1. We love Rohloff, of course.
2. The very minimum Rohloff should do to keep faith with customers is to maintain the spinner sprocket in production at the present high quality so that customers' expensive frames aren't made obsolete by a component manufacturer making a hostile specification change. This business of stopping manufacture of the threaded sprocket isn't just contrary to existing customers' interests but to the whole Rohloff ethos of keeping the gearbox working forever. If you can't get consumable parts for a component that continue to fit to and work with preexisting machinery, the component itself instantly becomes surplus to requirements.
3. As has been demonstrated, the Hebie Chainglider is important to some Rohloff owners. We would appreciate it if Rohloff would facilitate Hebie's production of not only a Chainglider for the splined sprockets, but for a wider variety of chainrings that work with existing and future Rohloff-fit Chainglider back pieces.
4. Rohloff has entirely overlooked the roadie market (for instance to reduce maintenance on winter training bikes), which finds a 54mm tread factor (Q) undesirable and a 58mm Q unacceptable. They demand a narrower Q, say 46mm.
5.
AGENDA FOR THE MAN FROM HEBIE
1. We love the Chainglider. We're big boosters of it.
2. The Rohloff gearbox for practical purposes lasts forever, so the threaded sprocket sizes will constitute a market for Chaingliders for many years yet.
3. Some of us would love to love the Chainglider but Hebie doesn't make a suitable chainring cover to work with the existing Rohloff 15-17T back end. (Some specific sizes like a 36T front end, for which we know there is a demand, could be mentioned.) The lowest sprocket ratio Rohloff permits is currently 1.9.
4.
I've asked representatives from high up in both companies these questions before, from Hebies point of view the tooling to make chain glider parts is very expensive, this means the have to pick the sizes they think they can sell the most of. They have done lots of market research with end users and OEM's. Its the same answer when I have asked for the front end to accommodate wider rings, same response was given.
Rohloff are a very amenable company and co-operate very well with people designing parts for the Speedhub (we know this because of when we made the 19T sprockets) even parts they don't have 100% faith in like the Chain Glider, Gates Carbon Drive, Cinq 5 flat bar shifters etc, I've no doubt they will help Hebie as much as they can or are requested to but at the end of the day they can't make them do anything.
The reason Rohlof have "overlooked" the road market is that the hub isn't a road hub nor is it marketed as such, the spacing is wrong 135mm vs road standard 130mm, as you have pointed out the chainline is well out. The hub is too heavy for road bikes and the gears are too far apart. The closest roadie bike that I know of in production would be a Thorn Mercury or VN Amazon style bike, neither of which you would see at anything more brisk than a sportive event.
I can't speak for Rohloff and it perhaps would be worth asking Stewart from Rohloff if there is a reason behind discontinuing direct fit sprockets by I imagine its due to the minimum order run for producing the sprockets and the low number of sprockets they would sell in comparison. Feedback I've had from most customers here is they can't wait for the new type to come out.
-
Thanks Dave for your perspective.
Co-Motion Americano is also a drop bar bike with road geometry that is available with Rohloff, but it is a robust (heavy) frame for touring, thus the light weight roadie crowd would likely show little interest. Their frames are hand made and are quite expensive. I suspect all of the Americanos stay in USA, thus you probably will never see one.
-
Dave: so you don't see any problem with the extra spacing of the new sprockets on tight frames like the RST?
-
I still don't see the huge difficulty in Rohloff selling two carriers - one for the 13 & 15t sprockets, and a narrower one for the 16 & 17t sprockets.
-
I've asked representatives from high up in both companies these questions before, from Hebies point of view the tooling to make chain glider parts is very expensive... Its the same answer when I have asked for the front end to accommodate wider rings, same response was given.
Thanks, Dave. Everything you say is what we suspected. It's interesting that even for Thorn Hebie wouldn't make a fatter front end...
All the same, Rohloff would do their reputation as a company which builds permanent products -- and customers -- no end of harm if there were a lot of people faced with a choice of dropping other components or even trashing whole frames because Rohloff deserted them by discontinuing a part, the threaded sprocket, that is essential to their bikes.
("London Bike Show", eh? So that's what LBS means!)
Ever since I acquired my first sophisticated bike, I have suspected "local bike shop" is a euphemism for "goddamn unreconstructed blacksmith". May I should move to Bridgend and live in Dave Whittle's pocket.
I still don't see the huge difficulty in Rohloff selling two carriers - one for the 13 & 15t sprockets, and a narrower one for the 16 & 17t sprockets.
Exactly. Which is precisely what they've done for years and years, the 13T sprocket being a completely different, non-reversible, design to the 15-17T reversible design. Which is why I can't see why keeping faith with existing customers by keeping the threaded sprockets available is such a big deal.
-
I imagine it's due to the minimum order run for producing the sprockets and the low number of sprockets they would sell in comparison
Dave knows a lot more about the economics of producing Rohloff sprockets than I do, so his reading of Rohloff's decision seems plausible. For now. But for how long?
I'd guess that within a decade, we'll be able to produce 16T & 17T threaded sprockets on a 3D printer -- what does that possibility do to the conventional arithmetic of production costs & production runs? Seems to me that, if we've made an investment in frames and hubs that are likely to last for at least a couple of decades, then I'd expect Rohloff and Thorn to track the development of that technology, with a view to licensing production of small batches of the necessary parts.
Extending the logic, what prospects for Hebie licensing 3D printer production of small batches of a 'glider for 36T chainring? Surely that possibility must be closer than a decade away?
-
I still don't see the huge difficulty in Rohloff selling two carriers - one for the 13 & 15t sprockets, and a narrower one for the 16 & 17t sprockets.
I was thinking this same thing myself.
If Rohloff won't, maybe some third party (Thorn/SJS?) could. Thorn/SJS already sell the 19T sprocket, to fill in a gap in Rohloff product line, so there is already a precedence.
- Dave
-
I was thinking this same thing myself.
If Rohloff won't, maybe some third party (Thorn/SJS?) could. Thorn/SJS already sell the 19T sprocket, to fill in a gap in Rohloff product line, so there is already a precedence.
- Dave
Ok the minimum order run for a new sprocket size from our subcontractor is 500, so if you can get together with an order for 250 of them, I can probably convince Robin to take the risk on the other 250....
-
Possible order list for Dave and Thorn...
To gauge demand, please list how many of each size custom-made threaded sprockets you would actually order. Please be sincere so Thorn is not left holding the bag if they go ahead on contracting for these:
Tooth size:
Quantity:
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks for checking but since I would want a 16T and probably nobody else would, count me as not wanting any.
I am still assuming that when the new ones come out, the older threaded ones will be on a clearance sale from some retailers.
I hope when the splined ones come out that we will be able to put a sprocket on there that has the same spline pattern as something else, perhaps a sprocket from a cassette for a 8 or 9 speed Shimano freehub. Or maybe an old Suntour five or six speed freewheel. Or a Sturmey Archer.
-
Thanks, Dave and Dan. Mine's already ordered and awaiting pickup at SJSC next week. A good idea in principle, but I'm now fixed up for the duration :-)
-
I appreciate the Thorn/SJS offer. However I just ordered a lifetime supply of sprockets for my hub.
- DaveS
-
If I'm not too lazy, I'll probably just order a couple of spare 17T sprockets while SJS still have stock, that should be enough to keep me going for several years use.
But the solution I would like to see is a redesigned carrier to allow fitting the new splined sprockets in either the current 54 mm chainline position or the new 57 (or 58) mm chainline position.
I think this could be achieved fairly simply (in manufacture, less easy if trying to adapt the standard part by DIY) by machining the carrier splines to an extra 3 or 4 mm depth, then adding two thin spacers (1.5 or 2 mm each). Unless there is a good engineering reason not to do this.
This would be similar to the system on the old Sturmey-Archer drivers on my S5/2 hubs, which allow quite a lot of chainline adjustment and even (with a bit of grinding) the use of two sprockets.
In addition to enabling those of us that have the old sprockets to continue using the same bottom bracket width (and perhaps Chainglider), a sprocket carrier redesigned as above would have the advantage of allowing small chainline adjustments at the hub for 16T and bigger, while maintaining the use of one design of carrier for all sprocket sizes (spacers must be inboard for the small 13, 14 and 15T sprockets, choice of both inboard, both outboard or 1 inboard and 1 outboard for larger sprockets).
-
Yes. Well I put in an order last week when I twigged to the implications
Thanks Dave and SJS. I have now received the shipment and have sprockets for the next 15-20 years :D
-
If I'm not too lazy, I'll probably just order a couple of spare 17T sprockets while SJS still have stock, that should be enough to keep me going for several years use.
But the solution I would like to see is a redesigned carrier to allow fitting the new splined sprockets in either the current 54 mm chainline position or the new 57 (or 58) mm chainline position.
I think this could be achieved fairly simply (in manufacture, less easy if trying to adapt the standard part by DIY) by machining the carrier splines to an extra 3 or 4 mm depth, then adding two thin spacers (1.5 or 2 mm each). Unless there is a good engineering reason not to do this.
Machining IS an option, but not something as convoluted as machining the splines. Going by the described design, you should simply need to machine off 4mm (3mm - this chain-line difference is still not clear??) off the inner face of the sprocket carrier. This will place the whole carrier 4mm to the left to re-instate the chain as per the current sprocket design.
-
Thanks for checking but since I would want a 16T and probably nobody else would, count me as not wanting any.
16T was the Rolloff default sprocket size, supplied with every Rohloff unless an OEM (Thorn for instance) asked for a different tooth count.
I can't make up my mind whether that means:
a) That there will be a more stocks of 16T sprockets and therefore those of us with an investment in 16T sprocket setups have nothing to worry about
OR
b) there will be a permanent high demand for 16T sprockets, so that the existing stocks will quickly disappear.
Whichever it is, by the end of next week I'll have enough 16T threaded sprockets to see my grandchildren right.
That's a public service Dave Whittle performed by warning us about these shenanigans at Rohloff, so that we could stock up.
***
As it happens, I can't see why the roadies go on about a narrow tread, or why a wide tread is so often blamed when a cyclist ruins his knees. I positively prefer a wide tread, and I could very likely learn to live with a 58mm Q factor on my Rolloff-equipped bike, if everything else were equal. But everything else is never equal, and, as I've said already, if push comes to shove in the spatial dimension (heh-heh), I'd give up the Rohloff before I'd give up the Chainglider.
***
Yo, Pete, you've clearly made a calculation, so how many sprockets have you laid in for the twenty years you mention?
-
I just bought a couple 16 tooth spares. Given that the chainglider keeps things clean so they last longer... well, who knows, that might be enough for the duration!
-
by the end of next week I'll have enough 16T threaded sprockets to see my grandchildren right.
I just bought a couple 16 tooth spares
I have now received the shipment and have sprockets for the next 15-20 years
I just ordered a lifetime supply of sprockets for my hub
Mine's already ordered and I'm now fixed up for the duration
Ah, jeez, now the truth is out, for any casual passer-by to see: we're all just hoarders, stocking up on collectors' items. Polished, and with a few gouges for authenticity, they'll make good retro-chic jewellry, conversation pieces for the grandkids. "Wow, grandpa -- you used that? You musta bin some dude, back in the day!"
-
Yo, Pete, you've clearly made a calculation, so how many sprockets have you laid in for the twenty years you mention?
I bought a couple of 17t, a 16t and two Thorn 19T sprockets. Given that I've just replaced the whole drivetrain 6 months ago after 4.5 years of use, I reckon between these I should have at least 20 years. The 16t should be handy when my wife wears hers out (she has 40-16, while I have 42-17 - almost exactly the same gear), then later on, if things get too weary for the old legs the 19t sprockets could allow a low gear range sans-Chainglider.
-
Ah, jeez, now the truth is out, for any casual passer-by to see: we're all just hoarders, stocking up on collectors' items. Polished, and with a few gouges for authenticity, they'll make good retro-chic jewellry, conversation pieces for the grandkids. "Wow, grandpa -- you used that? You musta bin some dude, back in the day!"
Nah, I'll save one or two of the old worn ones for that - much more cred. Just hope that I can get one like Pete Gostelow has ;D
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4953956488_68ab25e9fd.jpg)
-
Thanks, Pete.
-
I've also future proofed by ordering a 17T threaded sprocket. Should keep my RST frame serviceable for another 10k miles or more.
-
Machining IS an option, but not something as convoluted as machining the splines. Going by the described design, you should simply need to machine off 4mm (3mm - this chain-line difference is still not clear??) off the inner face of the sprocket carrier. This will place the whole carrier 4mm to the left to re-instate the chain as per the current sprocket design.
I've got one on my desk, sadly its a pre-production one and I'm not allowed to photo it until launch date, you can't do this as there is a tubular section the same diameter and length as the back of a standard Rohloff sprocket, it then rises sharply at an angle to form the bed-stop for the sprocket, if you removed material it would crush the bearing when tightened on this part is stainless, the inner part is pressed inside, this appears to be case hardened and carries the sprocket and cir-clip.
I hope when the splined ones come out that we will be able to put a sprocket on there that has the same spline pattern as something else, perhaps a sprocket from a cassette for a 8 or 9 speed Shimano freehub. Or maybe an old Suntour five or six speed freewheel. Or a Sturmey Archer.
The splines are unique in pattern and diameter to Rohloff.
-
The splines are unique in pattern and diameter to Rohloff.
Why am I not surprised >:(
How incredibly useless, selfish, and damaging to the industry. We certainly already have fairly standard splined sprockets that are used for Sturmey Archer. Why not use this? Grrrr.....
-
I've also future proofed by ordering a 17T threaded sprocket. Should keep my RST frame serviceable for another 10k miles or more.
Rotating three chains on the drivetrain, I got 25,000kms out of one 17t sprocket, so you'll do better than that. With the Chainglider I'd expect this may double.
-
I think Helen Lloyd of ‘Take on Africa’ got the most wear out of a sprocket.
And she did not even reverse it!
Julian.
-
I've also future proofed by ordering a 17T threaded sprocket. Should keep my RST frame serviceable for another 10k miles or more.
Rotating three chains on the drivetrain, I got 25,000kms out of one 17t sprocket, so you'll do better than that. With the Chainglider I'd expect this may double.
Yes you are right if you get the chain changes and reversing at the optimum time. I'm currently on my third sprocket as I've never quite got this spot on. The previous two wore to fish hooks and the chain didn't sit well on them after reversing!
-
That'll hook 'em, for sure, Pete :-)
-
the solution I would like to see is a redesigned carrier to allow fitting the new splined sprockets in either the current 54 mm chainline position or the new 57 (or 58) mm chainline position.
I think this could be achieved fairly simply (in manufacture, less easy if trying to adapt the standard part by DIY) by machining the carrier splines to an extra 3 or 4 mm depth, then adding two thin spacers (1.5 or 2 mm each). Unless there is a good engineering reason not to do this.
I like your splined spacer idea. It would only need one 3-4mm spacer, I think? though as you say two may be quite useful for giving more chainline options.
It could be made so the current Rohloff specific Chainglider could ride on the spacer, the same way that it rides on the outer seal lip of the threaded sprocket.
In addition to enabling those of us that have the old sprockets to continue using the same bottom bracket width (and perhaps Chainglider), a sprocket carrier redesigned as above would have the advantage of allowing small chainline adjustments at the hub for 16T and bigger, while maintaining the use of one design of carrier for all sprocket sizes (spacers must be inboard for the small 13, 14 and 15T sprockets, choice of both inboard, both outboard or 1 inboard and 1 outboard for larger sprockets).
The spacer would only need to be inboard for the 13 & 14 tooth sprockets.
It would seem to solve all the problems. Both chainlines using just one splined carrier unit, a bearing surface for the Chainglider, larger range of sprockets, ease of sprocket change/turn, very little if any extra weight.
Yup, A redesigned (by Rohloff in manufacture) splined carrier with splined spacer/spacers. That gets my vote. :)
Well done, il padrone 8)
-
...
The splines are unique in pattern and diameter to Rohloff.
I expected that, I was just hoping otherwise. If General Motors could make you buy air for your car tires from them, they would.
Since I am not running a chain glider, I am not too concerned. Later if I see some sale price 16t threaded sprockets, I might get one or two. If not, then I will just get the splined system and probably will get a longer bottom bracket at that time too.
-
I may be coming down on the wrong side of things, but I plan to keep my threaded sprocket until it is dead, then switch to the new system. My reasoning is, everyone will soon be in the same boat, and there is now a considerable installed base of Rohloff users. Everyone buying in the future will have to deal with these issues. Hopefully, if the design is refined further, it will be before I make my purchase.
I do love my bash guard, but moving my chainring from the middle slot to the outer on my crankarm spider and mounting the bash guard to the outside should leave me where I am without increasing my Q-factor. My gearing won't accommodate a Chainglider now, so I'll be no worse off.
My 2012 Nomad Mk2 is my newest bike. All the others are much older and with a couple excceptions, have freewheel-based derailleur drivetrains. I long ago laid in a stock of freewheels and most-used cogs, but at some point those will run out and changes must be made to tap into a reasonable supply of replacement parts. I have already spread the dropouts on the bike I inherited from my father, and this has opened up a world of current gearing options.
I really think things will shake out a bit in time. If Rohloff doesn't make the ideal carrier, I think there's a good chance a firm like TrickStuff might. I feel sure an aftermarket firm with CNC equipment will make a carrier before long to address the offset issue.
Best,
Dan.
-
I do love my bash guard, but moving my chainring from the middle slot to the outer on my crankarm spider and mounting the bash guard to the outside should leave me where I am without increasing my Q-factor. My gearing won't accommodate a Chainglider now, so I'll be no worse off.
I really think things will shake out a bit in time. If Rohloff doesn't make the ideal carrier, I think there's a good chance a firm like TrickStuff might. I feel sure an aftermarket firm with CNC equipment will make a carrier before long to address the offset issue.
Ah, but Dan, if we could persuade Rohloff, sooner rather than later, to redesign the splined carrier to include a workable chainline and Chainglider bearing surface, maybe we/they could persuade Hebie to redirect the money they would have spent redesigning the Rohloff specific rear end towards a smaller Chainglider front end option, in line with Rohloff's new lower allowable chainring/sprocket ratio. ;)
-
I like your thinking! There! In solidarity, I will sharpen my persuasive skills. ;)
All the best,
Dan.
-
Julk, I am amazed that you could get a sprocket that worn. I would never have thought that a chain could still work on a sprocket if it was even half as worn out as that.
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11609.0;attach=11946;image
-
How incredibly useless, selfish, and damaging to the industry. We certainly already have fairly standard splined sprockets that are used for Sturmey Archer. Why not use this? Grrrr.....
I can see two good reasons not to use the Sturmey three-peg system on the Rohloff -
- from experience, when I was younger, stronger and living somewhere much hillier than now, in long-mileage, high torque use, the Sturmey style sprockets can wear at the limited contact points (they only have three - the Rohloff and Shimano splined systems have many more contact points). Once worn, Sturmey style sprockets can then move a bit on the Sturmey driver. Perhaps for the same reason of limited contact points causing stress, the smallest Sturmey style 13T sprockets are prone to splitting (with strong cyclists on Moultons and Bromptons). I suspect that low gear on a Rohloff can apply much more torque than any Sturmey-compatible gear hub, so can understand Rohloff choosing a multi-spline system.
- I haven't had time to measure, but I don't think it would be possible to design an adapter that would be compatible with the thread on the Rohloff hub and the Sturmey three-peg system, which requires three fairly deep grooves on the driver (= carrier). I think that may be the reason Rohloff went for their unusual raised spline design on the carrier instead of adopting the more usual grooves like Shimano and Campagnolo.
-
Yes. Well I put in an order last week when I twigged to the implications
Thanks Dave and SJS. I have now received the shipment and have sprockets for the next 15-20 years :D
I might be playing the devil's advocate here, but I suppose it is fairly likely that Hebie will stop manufacture of the Rohloff-specific rear section of the Chainglider now that Rohloff plan to cease manufacture of the sprockets it is designed to fit.
Not sure how many thousands of kilometres a Chainglider will last, being plastic it might be more vulnerable to time spent in direct sunlight via UV degradation rather than physical wear.
Anyone planning to lay in stocks of Chaingliders ?
-
Not sure how many thousands of kilometres a Chainglider will last, being plastic it might be more vulnerable to time spent in direct sunlight via UV degradation rather than physical wear.
Physical wear seems the least likely threat to a Rohloff-specific Chainglider rear end, which has nothing to wear against, since it apparently rests on a ridge which keeps it clear of the sprocket and chain.
The front ends are common to all rear ends.
As for UV, I live in Ireland and rarely have to wear dark grey, dark brown or outright polarizing glasses when out cycling; most of the time I wear yellow shooter's glasses or pale orange night driving glasses in broad daylight, such as it is.
Anyone planning to lay in stocks of Chaingliders ?
I have a spare Rohloff rear end, and am considering sticking another one on an order for service oils and tyres and tubes I'm compiling. I also have a spare front end that doesn't work with my current centre motor, but my Chainglider handsomely outlived my first motor, so who knows what sort of motor I'll have by the time I need another Chainglider.
***
This is an interesting line of thought you've started, Martin: What could actually wreck a Chainglider? UV-driven ageing is in fact probably the most likely. I just don't see the chain or the sprockets wearing through a Chainglider in a Rohloff installation. Nor will it crack from impacts. But I can see it being ripped apart by a branch on a trail, which would very likely be a bike-destroying, very violent incident. Beyond that we get into the realms of fantasy. (An incident with a tanker full of chemicals, Commander Bond? Really!)
-
Bike 24 are having a 20% off sale (http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content=8;product=12491;menu=1000,2,82) on existing sprockets now (feb 12).
Also pic here
(http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_155_Splined-Sprocket_13-21_9098d3602c.png) on the Rohloff site showing the wider range of cogs for the splined set-up. At least, to me the range appears wider - 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21. Apologies if this is old news.
-
I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own. First off ... the folks that insist on shielding the chain with a contraption (an uncool looking one as there ever was) are closeted deniers. They really want a Gates Carbon drive ... but don't admit it to themselves. :D ;D
Secondly, I very much welcome this development. Musings on the horrors of the spline adapter freezing on the hub are misguided, I feel, because that is the very condition we have had to live with and that is now solved due to the fact that, reasonably, we will never have to un-freeze this part, but simply slide the new sprocket onto it. Genius move, than you Rohloff for thinking about how the hub really needs to be in real world use to solve our maintenance problems.
On the other hand the new chainline is unwelcome news. Who actually needs a 13" rear? Really? Could we not have had a 16-24 rear hub and all that large diameter rears offer? There are plenty of 54" front drives, so I don't see the need for this 13" chain eater to continue, plus there is the fact that a large front chainring will make a man look, well ... manly. Who does not want that?
But the increased Q factor is a poor result. Just ask velo-orange on how bad an ergonomic cycling nightmare it is!
I measured my Thorn Raven Sports Tour with my whiz-bang calipers, and I have exactly 6.5137 clearance from the 17 tooth "old Tech" sprocket to the inner rear stay - and that is worrisome for someone who wants an adapter and a 20" rear. It is not gonna fit.
But I have survived the hideous change from quill to Ahead stems (they should be called A-backwards) and so we shall survive this. I believe this to be Andy's secret plot to sell new Ravens and as such I am honored to be selected for obsolescence and the march forward for Country, Rohloff, and Thorn. So dudes ... get with it. Stop complaining ... and pay up. It is good for the universe as well as the local economy. Besides, you all sound like a bunch of Chicken Littles - the sky is NOT falling. Only our bank balances are. It's how capitalism works.
-
Nice post.
Made me smile if only because of your comment in the first paragraph.
I'm one of those sad souls who cover their chains in a ' glider.
While in Sri Lanka last month I had stopped for a tea break and watched a few locals check my Raven.
There was a lot of mumbling in the local language and then I heard, " Belt drive".
-
...Who actually needs a 13" rear? Really? ...
...But the increased Q factor is a poor result. ...
Did you mean the 13 tooth sprocket or 13 inches?
A few months ago I bought a spare thread on Rohloff sprocket so when my current one wears out I have another. I bought it now since I might not be able to buy one later. Did this because of Q factor.
-
While in Sri Lanka last month I had stopped for a tea break and watched a few locals check my Raven.
There was a lot of mumbling in the local language and then I heard, " Belt drive".
I had a similar experience, Matt, on my ride south on the Icefields Parkway from Jasper to Lake Louise. Checked into a hostel because some campgrounds weren't yet open, and met a dozen 60-and-70-somethings. They oohed and aahed over my Raven-mit-Rohloff (a novelty, really, I have to say in all honesty) and asked, did I have a belt drive?
I had to admit that I didn't have a belt drive, just don't like cleaning and fussing with my chain.
In Whitefish, Montana, I met up with a clutch of West-to-East riders, and one guy in particular seemed to have researched the issues. He was interested to know about my experience with the Rohloff, and asked why I didn't get a belt drive and dispense with maintenance altogether. I didn't have much of an answer, beyond saying that Thorn don't offer a belted Raven. (I thought of saying that I didn't want to seen as copying Harley riders, but I've learned to be careful about cross-cultural wisecracks.) He did say, yes, the belt requires a purpose-built frame, and there's the matter of splitting the rear triangle.
There's more on belts and Rohloffs here, including splitting the rear triangle: [https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/reviews/board/message/?o=tS&thread_id=729700&page=1&nested=0&v=e (https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/reviews/board/message/?o=tS&thread_id=729700&page=1&nested=0&v=e)]. No comment, though, on the new adapter and its chainline-and-Q-factor.
-
I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own. First off ... the folks that insist on shielding the chain with a contraption (an uncool looking one as there ever was) are closeted deniers. They really want a Gates Carbon drive ... but don't admit it to themselves
Not in my case. I prefer the old-fashioned metal chain, which I can split, repair, and if necessary buy in almost any bikeshop anywhere I have been. I hankered after a chaincase for at least 20 years before being persuaded to take the plunge by Andre Jute's chainglider posts.
So far I am happy with the Chainglider. Oldest has been running for 4 years on an old 650B wheel bike. I have two others on recent Thorns. It will be possible to convert 2 other family bikes when the current non-Chainglider compatible chainrings/sprockets are worn out. It would have been much more complicated and expensive to convert all those bikes to belt drive.
-
I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own. First off ... the folks that insist on shielding the chain with a contraption (an uncool looking one as there ever was) are closeted deniers. They really want a Gates Carbon drive ... but don't admit it to themselves
Not in my case. I prefer the old-fashioned metal chain, which I can split, repair, and if necessary buy in almost any bikeshop anywhere I have been. I hankered after a chaincase for at least 20 years before being persuaded to take the plunge by Andre Jute's chainglider posts.
I'm flattered.
I'm afraid I'm not one of those who really want a Gates belt, either, if indeed there are any of those after the first enthusiasm of "see a novelty, want a novelty" wears off.
I looked into the Gates belt when it first came out and decided a chain with a Chainglider has another decisive advantage, besides the universal availability Martin points up.
See, the Gates drive has all those transverse ridges to collect dirt whereas the Chainglider is smooth outside and wipes clean easily and quickly (I wipe mine twice a year with a tissue, if I remember), while the Gates drive requires a brush to get the dirt out of all those ridges. Thus the Gates drive is not as clean, nor as maintenance free as a Chainglider, especially for those of us who cycle in street clothes and whose trousers bottoms thus drag against the transmission.
The upshot is that I would want to cover the Gates drive with a chaincase anyway -- and currently there aren't any available that fit as universally and easily as the Chainglider fits a chain. I'm not returning to those clanky Dutch chain cases that require frame-side braze-ons just to use a Gates drive, that's for sure. We'll see how many Gates users feel the same way I do when covers for the Gates start appearing.
At that end of the service life of your transmission, changing the chain can be a filthy job, especially if like me you run the chain for its entire life on the extra-sticky factory lube inside the Chainglider, though nothing else on the bike needs to be disturbed, but changing a Gates drive requires substantial disassembly and reassembly of the bike. I know which job I'd rather tackle in a monsoon in the mud beside a heavily trafficked road on a fully loaded bike.
I do think though that eventually the Gates drive will take over for all but ultgralight outright racing bikes, which will retain the chain because they cannot afford the extra weight of the Gates system or the loss of integrity splitting the rear triangle will cause in an already not overly strong frame. But I'm happy that the chain will see me out.
-
Looks like it will be possible to fit splined sprockets and Chainglider after all:
https://www.rosebikes.com/article/rohloff-s-adapter-for-splined-carrier/aid:2668410
-
Looks like it will be possible to fit splined sprockets and Chainglider after all:
https://www.rosebikes.com/article/rohloff-s-adapter-for-splined-carrier/aid:2668410
Good news!
-
Bingo! That is the one I have been waiting for. Well found and nicely shared, Martin!
All the best,
Dan.
-
If they had come out with that earlier, I would not have bought a spare threaded sprocket.
-
If they had come out with that earlier, I would not have bought a spare threaded sprocket.
I feel your pain, mickeg. Looking at the dimensions, I figured it *should* be possible to make a slimline version of the carrier, but I was doubtful they would as it seemed a long shot.
I'll wait till my cog needs replacement, then will likely go for a new splined cog and this carrier.
In any case, it is reassuring to see Rohloff continue their earlier commitment to making new developments and refinements backward-compatible with older units.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Looks like it will be possible to fit splined sprockets and Chainglider after all:
https://www.rosebikes.com/article/rohloff-s-adapter-for-splined-carrier/aid:2668410
martinf,
Well spotted. It's good to see that Rohloff has taken note of our needs chainline wise and have manufactured a splined carrier which will allow us to keep using the Chainglider.
I do love my bash guard, but moving my chainring from the middle slot to the outer on my crankarm spider and mounting the bash guard to the outside should leave me where I am without increasing my Q-factor. My gearing won't accommodate a Chainglider now, so I'll be no worse off.
I really think things will shake out a bit in time. If Rohloff doesn't make the ideal carrier, I think there's a good chance a firm like TrickStuff might. I feel sure an aftermarket firm with CNC equipment will make a carrier before long to address the offset issue.
Ah, but Dan, if we could persuade Rohloff, sooner rather than later, to redesign the splined carrier to include a workable chainline and Chainglider bearing surface, maybe we/they could persuade Hebie to redirect the money they would have spent redesigning the Rohloff specific rear end towards a smaller Chainglider front end option, in line with Rohloff's new lower allowable chainring/sprocket ratio. ;)
I like your thinking! There! In solidarity, I will sharpen my persuasive skills. ;)
All the best,
Dan.
Hey Dan,
How sharp are those persuasive skills of yours, got them honed to perfection yet? ;)
Do you think it's now time to let them loose on Hebie? :)
In any case, it is reassuring to see Rohloff continue their earlier commitment to making new developments and refinements backward-compatible with older units.
All the best,
Dan.
Yes, well done Rohloff 8)
-
Hey Dan,
How sharp are those persuasive skills of yours, got them honed to perfection yet? ;)
Do you think it's now time to let them loose on Hebie?
;D They're generally pretty good, but Hebie has so far managed to resist them. ;)
In truth, the costs of mold creation must be enormous, and I think they would have to realize sufficient return on their investment to make it worthwhile. I'm not sure there is yet a critical mass of 36t chainring users to attract their eye.
In my extensive correspondence I was never able to convince their very nice representative that Rohloff had indeed relaxed their limitations on low gearing to allow use of a 36t chainring. I do know it is possible to produce a smaller Chainglider, for Hebie has since introduced one to fit the very small "chainwheel" used for pedelecs with Bosch mid-drive.
It has been awhile, so perhaps it is time I send another query to see if there is a chance a smaller-diameter front piece will be made.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Correction to my recent post - the new slimmer carrier is good news for the chainline, but unfortunately seems not to solve the Chainglider issue.
I found this: "The rear portion of a Hebie Chainglider Type 350 is not compatible with the SPEEDHUB splined sprocket system. Hebie are currently (at time of press) working on an alternative solution - see FAQs at www.rohloff.de/en/"
On page 2 of this document:
https://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/user_upload/8540_Splined_Carrier_-_Splined_Sprocket_EN.pdf
So I expect Hebie will stop making the current version of the Chainglider that is compatible with the old screw-on sprockets.
For me, time to buy one spare Rohloff rear portion to go with the spare screw-on sprocket I bought.
-
For me, time to buy one spare Rohloff rear portion to go with the spare screw-on sprocket I bought.
Got mine already. Don't expect to use either. I think it likely my present sprocket and Hebie rear end will see me out. The sprocket is getting on for 10K kilometres and shows no sign of wear on the first side.
Off to ride.
-
I think it likely my present sprocket and Hebie rear end will see me out. (http://I think it likely my present sprocket and Hebie rear end will see me out.)
Yep -- I'm getting into a bike-survivalist mode these days, in keeping with the slightly apocalyptic zeitgeist. Like you, Andre, I reckon my 'glider, my not-obviously-worn current sprocket, & my spare threaded one will last at least as long as I can use them. If Hebie should produce a 'glider that's compatible with the 3S (= Slimline Splined Sprocket) carrier, I'll get one of each and sell what I've currently got on the retro market that will arise.