Hi John!
You asked, very astutely...
Dan, at 36 x 17, have you not ventured into The Dreaded Red Zone?
Yes! Indeed I have...by Rohloff's
old standards. Very recently, they relaxed those restrictions and 36x17 is no longer forbidden. Instead, it is one of several new lowest-low ratios/cog-'ring combos Rohloff now approve.
Because I was once where you are now in pondering the Rohloff, I'll take a bit more time with my answer in hopes it will prove helpful in reducing the Unknown.
On gearing low...and merits of samePrior to this -- and especially during the warranty period -- I was indeed careful to stick to one of Rohloff's previously approved lowest-lows, 40x17. Sure, the Rohloff gearbox is expensive, and I wanted to keep my warranty coverage. However, there is something far beyond warranty concerns for me, and that is actual on-tour reliability. I tour alone and unsupported well out of cellphone range in temperature and geographic extremes where a failure could be the end of me. Because I viewed Rohloff's warranty recommendations as an index of reliability, I was loath to exceed them. Now they have been altered, I feel comfortable Rohloff have enough data to certify the hub's reliability at lower ratios. What was speculation is now the closest I can come to fact.
Rohloff's approval of lower ratios confirms Andre's oft-repeated mention of a generous safety margin, as it does for Andy Blance's use of low gearing. It is just nice from my perspective to get the word from On High, direct from Rohloff.
I can say that for my use and in my own experience with low-geared derailleur bikes, going to the 36x17 on my Rohloff-equipped Nomad Mk2 has been a sea-change in making the bike feel more Mine. It compares to getting the "right" handle bars for my needs and preferences. Suddenly, everything feels more natural and familiar, and I have a truly useful and distinct "high range" (quiet operation, "bright" freewheel click) and "low range" (zhoo-zhoo-zhoo noises to a greater or lesser degree when pedaling in most lower gears, but a very soft freewheel click). The high range is what I'm most apt to use on-road...37-80 gear-inches.
With my hummingbirdike 110-120 RPM cadence, I'll be switching most often between 55" direct-drive Gear 11 and 62" Gear 12 (1st overdrive). For headwinds, I'll drop down to my derailleur-familiar 42" and bend my elbows a bit more. For gales (I usually hit afternoon headwinds of 39-45mph/63-72kph in my Great Basin meanderings), I've got the 37" and riding knees-inside-elbows in my beloved into-the-wind shallow-drop/flat-back position.
For hill work and dirt going up and down pronghorn antelope and big-horn sheep trails...unpaved, dirt, rocks the size of shoeboxes and ~24% grades while loaded with 50kg of gear, then I have seven gears in my Low Range to draw upon...from a nice 33" to a near-1:1 25" all the way down to a stump-pulling 15" which isn't as low as it seems (12" is about as low as I have consistently managed with derailleurs when fully loaded on grades 24% and up). For me, the problem has not been keeping upright and making forward progress, it is that the crankarm comes 'round so fast on startup, it is hard to get cleated in before losing forward momentum. The key is to start in a higher gear then immediately drop down, as JimK has frequently suggested...it is just harder with a derailleur and easier to do so with a Rohloff.
Remember: The Rohloff is *already* in gear when you hear the click on shifting, whereas even a good der mech needs about a quarter-turn of the pedals to fully snag and engage the next gear, be it cog or chainring.
So, John, long story short: I'm still preoccupied with the Rohloff warranty, but made the jump to a previously forbidden ratio now it is Rohloff Approved™.
Whazzit like?John...I was in very much the same position as you are when I started this journey. I had no idea, really, how the Rohloff drivetrain would work in practice, and found this Forum and its experienced members to be a tremendous resource. I can honestly say that despite all my research, careful reading, and questioning, I could not fully grasp the ehm, "Rohloff Ethos" until I got one, and it has required a period of adjustment and learning even then. I have taken another great leap forward in my "comfortableness" and familiarity with the gearbox now the gearing is set more to my liking. Having ridden so many years (35+) "with intent" on derailleur bikes, I have not yet reached that level of familiarity with the Rohloff. I expect to...it is just that not all the "features" come as second nature just yet.
That said, the Experience is remarkable, verging on the sublime at times.
The Good (from my perspective)1) The operating costs are minimal compared to *modern* 9-sp+ derailleur systems (my old 5-, 6-, and 7-speed thick-cog stuff lasted forever), especially if you choose to keep the
complete drivetrain intact and run it into the ground, then reverse cog and 'ring and fit a new chain before running that into the ground in turn. Completely opposite derailleur practice, the parts all wear-in/wear-out together if one goes this route, and the results can be astounding, as shown by Stuart's (Stutho's) experience where he enjoyed 10,000-12,000
miles on the drivetrain before reversing gears and fitting a new chain.
2) Daily maintenance is greatly reduced compared to derailleur drivetrains, a real boon to the tourist who may not have as frequent opportunities to clean the drivetrain as when it is used near home. A Hebie Chainglider would extend this benefit in most use, though the jury is still out as to its appropriateness in the talc-fine dry-lake playa and alkali dust I often encounter. I may well fit a Chainglider for all but desert use, then revert to exposed chainring/cog and bash guard for desert tours. The switch wouldn't be complicated or take much time to accomplish and would be well worth the hassle if I find it necessary. Time and experience will tell.
3) The ability to change gears while at a standstill is something I am growing to love with a loaded touring bike, but have not yet integrated as fully as I intend. The potential here is Huge, and I do wish to exploit it. It is a matter of experience, but I am already getting to the point of assessing a grade before startup, saying "Hmm...this looks like it needs a Gear 4" ...and getting it right the first time.
4) Pausing momentarily between gears is almost hardwired in me after so many years on friction-shifted der mechs, and would be habit even if the Rohloff didn't require it to whatever small degree, especially between Gears 7 and 8. I find having the Rohloff shifter on the T-bar actually helps me in this regard and I still find it "quicker" and even more convenient than downtube or bar-end derailleur shifters. Note: I always paused momentarily when index-shifting as well; old habits are hard to break.
5) With the shifter on the T-bar, I can approach it in a grip (as on straight 'bars) or from the end (as with a doorknob, using my fingertips to "spin" it). Going in from the end, I can cover as many as 7 gears at a single shift. This addressed my initial concerns about the Rohloff's gear-steps being even rather than logarithmic, as I enjoyed with derailleurs. Generally, larger percentage steps are required between low gears to feel a difference; conversely, smaller steps are needed between higher gears for the same effect. Rohloff's steps are all even, and I worried I wouldn't be able to make the "big steps" needed when up- and down-shifting in the lower gears. "Grabbing a fistful of Rohloff" and spinning through several gears in one shot addresses that concern completely for me.
5) As detailed elsewhere on this Forum, compared to my Sherpa's final gearing of 22/32/44 and 12-37 9-sp where I ended up with 13 effective speeds, the Rohloff is comparable, giving me 14 usable gears. While I always enjoyed shifting der bikes (as I do cars with manual transmissions), it is also a joy to not worry about cross-chain issues or looking back inside my right thigh to confirm what gear I'm actually in. I've always loved making gear charts and shifting by them, but to
not need one with a Rohloff results in a childlike joy that is hard to describe. Cycling become more elemental. I have gone back to a gear chart with the recent change in ratios, simply 'cos it adds to my joy in riding and brings an element of the familiar into play. I can have more fun with the Rohloff 'cos I also have the chart to play with. The difference is the chart is now a fun accessory rather than an integrated and necessary part of the shifting experience.
6) The Rohloff offers direct-access, sequential shifting. The import of this term took me awhile to fully appreciate. My favorite derailleur setup has always been half-step gearing. It is simple, intuitive, the shifts are easy enough to never need a chart, and it nets the greatest number of usable combinations. However, the loss of suitable front derailleurs has killed halfstep for the masses, and it is hard to engineer a usable half-step with more than 7 cogs on the cassette (my favorite/ultimate was a 7-sp half-step on my Miyata 1000LT; I still have half-step on most of my other bikes). In contrast, crossover gearing results in a poor number of available combinations, lots of duplicates, and a lot of cross-shifting. Rather than shifting sequentially through the entire range, most people simply treat the three chainrings as "Low", "Cruising/All-'Round" and "Downhill". I found with even my best shot at crossover gearing on Sherpa, by the time I'd cross-shifted, I'd lost enough momentum on hills to make the gear I was aiming for obsolete by the time I found it. In contrast, the Rohloff is like a sequential gearbox in a rally car -- no H- or double-H pattern, just yank and throw the lever. You don't/can't actually "skip" gears, but by the time you "let the clutch out" (stop spinning the Rohloff shifter), you're in whatever gear you've finally selected. Fair warning: This.is.addictive. A bit like steering wheel-mounted paddle-shifters that allow gear pre-selection. Something in the original experience is lost, to be replaced by something "different" and, well, fun in its own way.
The Drawbacks (for me)There are some drawbacks, none show-stoppers for me. Chief among them is I (me, in my own experience) do find the Rohloff drivetrain to have more drag
on coasting than my well-tuned derailleur setup. The difference is greatest on high-speed downhills and insignificant at touring speeds, but it is there. I think it depends on what gear one is in when coasting, but I have not finished my tests and so cannot draw any conclusions at this point. Research is ongoing to the rallying cry of "For Science!".
I wish it was as silent in all gears as my grease-injected freewheels, deliberately rigged for silent running by my preference and so I could sneak up on wildlife. I don't like the "bright-to-brilliant" freewheel clicks in the Rohloff nor the "zhoo-zhoo-zhoo" noise when pedaling in lower gears, but I am getting used to them,
and they are also quietening over time with greater use, just as expected.
I do miss the solid engagement of a derailleur system, but the Rohloff gets there all the same in a "softer" way...and engages as firmly with pedaling. All of this is offset by the eerie "instant engagement" of the Rohloff. I still find myself pleasantly surprised by it. I'm expecting to wait for the gear and find I'm
already *in* it. Absolutely astounding from my perspective.
The Rohloff shifter -- with the cables adjusted appropriately slack -- does not precisely indicate what gear you're in. Instead, is is approximate between gears. Gear 11 "might" be Gear 12...or really 11. Unlike derailleurs, it doesn't really "matter", but it would be nice for my more spot-on, derailleur-tuned expectations.
I wish the barrel/body/grip of the shifter were larger for better leverage and reduced shifting effort. I'm okay with it, but friends with arthritic fingers always go "Ow! Whyzit so hard to turn?" when they try spinning the shifter (I have the EX external shift-box with thumbscrew attachment, and this is said to have a bit more friction at the hub than does the Rohloff without the EX box (internal shifter with two cable quick-releases, typically routed from above).
That's about it on the demerits, none being of any real concern in my practical use.
- - - - -
Hebie Say: "38T Chaingliders are OK for 36T and 37T chainrings"I was in communication with Hebie last week, and their representative specifically advised me...
The Chainglider is indeed a perfect solution for chain protection and certainly in combination with the Rohloff system. For gear-rings with 36T and 37T you can use the Chainglider front part for 38Teeth. ( 0350F 38 E1) . The rear part with special Rohloff fitting is: 0350R S15 E1. This rear part is usable with sprockets 15T, 16T and 17T.
...so I take this as a green-light to fit a "38T" Hebie Chainglider to my 36T Surly stainless chainring. Please note: The Thorn chainrings are too thick for clearance in the Chainglider, and will result in cosmetic damage to the ring and excess friction from scuffing between the 'ring and Chainglider. There seems to be no such issue when Surly's stainless 'rings are used.
I hope you and others find this useful; it is precisely the information I was seeking when pondering a Rohloff.
Best,
Dan.
