Since I was 19 (I'm 62 now), one of my favorite cycling activities has been ridge-running/pass hunting. Where I live is surrounded by mountain range foothills on three sides, opening to flat farmland (and stiff headwinds after 10:00) to the north, so cycling on steep gravel access and logging roads, animal trails, singletrack and cross-country uphill has long been part of the fun when I'm not putting in long distances on tarmac. The views afforded from the summits are always worth the effort and make it worthwhile to pack a small pair of binoculars to get the most of it.
This last Sunday, I did a ride in the Thurston Hills near me using my Enduro-Allroad bike equipped with derailleur gearing and a bottom gear of 22x36 or 16 gear-inches, comparable to my Nomad's 36x17 or 15 gear-inches. I enjoyed it so much, I went back today ("For science!") on my Rohloff-equipped Nomad Mk2 to see for myself how (my) techniques varied for the two bikes. Both are equipped with tires having no or little tread -- Innova Swiftor road slicks and Schwalbe Duremes, both in 26x2.0 width and carrying equal pressures of 29psi/1.99bar front, 39psi/2.68bar rear. Each bike carried 2l of water at the time. Both bikes are equipped with Thudbuster Long Travel seatposts which allow me to remain seated as long as possible in rough terrain, ensuring the rear tire remains pressed down by my body weight to aid traction.
Perhaps because it was
so steep -- initial grade was 17%, steepest was 26% -- I didn't find much difference in technique though I shifted between the bottom 3-4 gears as terrain allowed. The dried mud and flattened meadow grass offered even less traction than the looser sections of gravel.
Once underway, the gearing was sufficient for me to proceed on the unladen bikes while pedaling. The rub came when I stopped and had to restart. With weight on the saddle it required 3-4 restarts to gain sufficient traction to pull myself and the bikes forward. Otherwise it was fairly easy to pedal the bikes out from under or simply spin the rear wheel. Road slicks made it a bigger challenge but extra fun for me as I always enjoy honing my bike skills. Out-of-saddle starts were often impossible in my 2nd or 3rd lowest gears; there just wasn't enough weight on the rear wheel to prevent traction loss. Upshifting shortly after starting avoided over-revving but were problematic engaging while at rest for the derailleur bike. It might have been better for each bike with knobby-treaded tires but that comparison will have to wait for another day.
I'm a spinner, so made up for the low gears with a high cadence and maintained a ground speed of about 3.5mph/5.6kms. I always follow the maxim, "Allow the hill to come to you, rather than coming to it", meaning I pick a cadence and shift to keep it as constant as possible. My preferred cadence is 110-120rpm and I try never to let it drop below 85rpm to spare my knees strain. As a result, I tend to rev up a bit before a shift so I can drop a gear cleanly and not under much or any load as my cadence drops. I never or almost never shift my derailleur or Rohloff drivetrains under load, anticipate the steeper sections and shift in advance, and "float" the shift by making it while I can still spin under less pressure. I avoid over-revving by allowing forward progress to ease as the hill increases slope.
In direct comparison, the two drivetrains shifted equally well using this technique but the Rohloff shifts were considerably faster -- as close to instant as I could want. In contrast, the derailleur drivetrain occurred as early as every quarter-turn when the shift ramps and gates lined up. The difference wasn't much in time but in practice it was huge in feel and I much preferred the Rohloff's immediate engagement. Also, for those times when it was preferable to restart in a higher gear, the derailleur bike needed to be lifted and the drivetrain spun while shifting to select it. The Rohloff, of course, simply needed a twist of the shifter while at rest; startup was in whatever gear I pleased. This didn't matter much when unladen but is a huge convenience factor when the bikes are heavily laden with full touring kit (duh!).
On balance, I found both drivetrains to be pretty much equal for riding technique and function, but the Nomad's Rohloff got the nod for convenience when upshifting underway or when selecting a higher gear from rest.
One huge factor favoring the Nomad for me is its lack of rear derailleur cage. This is always a worry when proceeding cross-country on a derailleur bike as I don't want to wind up a bunch of grass or have a stick flip into the chain and so end up damaging chain, derailleur, or hanger. This is yet another reason why the Nomad's Rohloff makes it my expedition bike of choice as nothing hangs down in harm's way and I have occasionally found pencil-sized small sticks snapped in two by the chain and sprocket, noticed only by the sharp noise that results as I plow ahead unhindered.
For science!*
Best, Dan.
*Yes, I know this was a far from scientific test, but it was a fun comparison between roughly similar bikes with different drivetrains on the same terrain and riding them made me aware of how similar yet different they are.
