These are valid points, and here are my thoughts.
Disclaimer: I have a Thorn Nomad with a Rohloff, and I think the Rohloff is great (for my purposes).
why fight it derailleurs are still very much better than hubs for a lot of us
That is the key point: "for a lot of us". Derailleurs will be around for a long time, since they work great and have been refined for decades. Those of us who love Rohloffs are not saying that Rohloffs are the best for everyone and every situation. But for certain situation, Rohloffs are superior to derailleurs.
not as complex
True, but complexity must be weighed against the benefits that a more complex device provides. If simplicity was the overall goal of a bike, and we removed any component that contained any hint of complexity, we would end up with walking stick.
not as heavy
True. However, the weight gain of the Rohloff is not as much as some people think, since you need to subtract the weight of the additional chainrings, the front and rear derailleurs, and the sprockets. Also, the weight is concentrated at the center of the wheel, so it has less effect on rotational momentum (acceleration). But yes, the Rohloff does add weight.
not as expensive,
Your honour, my client pleads no contest, except perhaps insanity. Guilty as charged.
[Edit: While the up-front cost is much higher, I believe that in the long run, the Rohloff will actually be cheaper than a derailleur because of its extremely long service life.]
more effcient
Yes, but only slightly. I don't think you would notice the difference. The Rohloff website has a good article about efficiency:
http://www.rohloff.de/en/technology/efficiency/index.htmlIronically, the Rohloff is a German design, and I have never heard of the Germans been accused of inefficiency.
greater gear range
Yes, this is true. When I switched from my 27-speed mountain bike to my Nomad, I gave up the top gear. My bottom gears are almost identical, and the top Rohloff gear is almost the same as the second-top gear on my derailluer. Since I ride a lot of hills, I gave up the top gear rather than the bottom gear. I would argue that while you do give up a bit of gear range, a 526% range is still sufficient for most cases.
easier to remove rear wheel
I don't understand this point. In both cases, you undo the axle nut or quick-release and drop the wheel out. Are you referring to needing to reduce the chain tension before removing the wheel on a Rohloff? I've never needed to remove my wheel (so far -- it's only been 2-1/2 years), so I can't remember any additional steps.
sorry but i'm impressionable and the impression set here is a lot of expense and constant faffing, not of an ultra reliable worry free bit of kit
Yes, a lot of expense, but I haven't heard of "constant faffing". (What does "faffing" mean, anyway? Tinkering and adjusting?) Maybe you are referring to different ways of tensioning the chain. I love the Rohloff for the precise reason that I don't need to do adjust, clean, or fix it. I do a lot of riding in the rain, and my derailluer didn't last long with all the road grit in the gears. Also, I ride in city traffic, and have a Rohloff is almost like have a (semi-)automatic transmission. I'm always in the right gear, and changing gears is effortless and always precise.
ps i hope this post isn't going to provoke more arguments
Me too. Debates about the technical merits of a design are good and helpful, but name-calling and personal insults have no place here.
I love my Rohloff, but I realize that it is not for everyone. In the same way, I love my Nomad, but I realize that many people would call me an idiot for commuting up my hills with a heavy bike. I don't care. It works great for me.
- Dave
