[Part 2] Rohloff splined sprockets (and Chainglider fitment)

[martinf]

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 

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 ?

[Andre Jute]

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!)

[onmybike]

Bike 24 are having a 20% off sale on existing sprockets now (feb 12).

Also pic here
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.

[Pavel]

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.

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.

[Matt2matt2002]

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".

[mickeg]

...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.

[John Saxby]

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]. No comment, though, on the new adapter and its chainline-and-Q-factor.

[martinf]

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.

[Andre Jute]

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.

[martinf]

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

[Andre Jute]

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! 

[Danneaux]

Bingo! That is the one I have been waiting for. Well found and nicely shared, Martin!

All the best,

Dan.

[mickeg]

If they had come out with that earlier, I would not have bought a spare threaded sprocket.

[Danneaux]

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.

[macspud]

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