title, what are ups and downs between using chain or hub gears?(pic)
>>931025
Hub gear: expensive, heavy, comparatively high losses and fixed increments and range
Derailleur gear: cheap, light, low losses, easily configurable in both range and spacing by swapping cassettes, weak/vulnerable and exposed to external forces
>>931028
>fixed increments and range
???
>>931028
what do you mean by high losses, range and fixed increments?
also derailleur gear is harder to drive.
I'd summarize it this way: IGHs are simple and less prone to damage or misadjustment, while derailer gearing is lighter, easier to customize, and generally cheaper.
>>931033
>>931035
Not him, but I'm sure what he's referring to is that with IGH you're committing to a set number and range of gears and there's not much room to modify that later short of using a different hub. And with losses, derailer systems are more efficient than IGHs (at least in lab conditions) when you look at how much power gets to the rear wheel.
>>931035
>>931033
A hub gear is harder to drive. A hub gear eats up a larger percentage of the force you put on the pedals without transferring it to the wheels.
A hub gear is also built with fixed increment between gears. A cassette can be built with 11-13-15-17... gearing as well as 11-12-13-14... for tighter grouping. You can not change the grouping in an IGH what so ever. You can easily switch cassettes in under five minutes.
You can buy cassettes with a range from 11-21 to 11-42 depending on how broad a range you need, but the range of an IGH is fixed. You can shift an IGHs range from light←→heavy, but not shape it.
>>931040
In what way is an IGH less prone to misadjustement? In fact, one of the easiest ways to damage an IGH is to misadjust it, and that misadjustment stem from the same causes as derailleur misadjustment. They're both manouvered by cable tension. (Unless Di2, and that's actually what makes Di2 Afline a much better proposal than Di2 Ultegra.)
In fact I would argue that most IGHs move less cable per shift, and is therefore _more_ prone to going out of adjustment than the typical derailleur system.
>>931040
>GHs are simple and less prone to damage or misadjustment
I don't get it. Nothing is as simple as a derailler with a friction shifter. Never gets out of adjust. Those clickety click things that allow only single step gear changes are cancer.
That said, a 3 speed IGH is OK for a city bike. Such bike doesn't need to pretend being anything more than it really is.
The 7 and 8 speeds need to be opened for annual gasoline path and relubrication to last longer than 5 years in acceptable condition. The new oil bath ones are different beasts altogether, but they cost honey.
The problem with IGHs with high gear number is that they require maintenance. No complex maintenance, but regular maintenance and the people who buy IGHs usually don't bother with that.
>>931052
>only single step gear changes
You haven't used triggers or brifters in the last ten years.
You're trying to feel better about your great craigslist "find" by inventing an alternate reality where it is technically superior to thirty years of evolution. Cognitive dissonance, pal.
>>931042
>In fact I would argue that most IGHs move less cable per shift, and is therefore _more_ prone to going out of adjustment than the typical derailleur system.
And once the cable wears a little it starts to flex you never get more than 5 out of the seven gears to align at any time.
>>931056
Well I don't cloth myself into latex or wear special shoes to make myself one with the machine to achieve speeds illegal for mopeds.
Old steel bikes are great fun in casual use. 5km every day to the college in college clothes.
>>931059
Quickly moving on to the next level of defense I see. Perhaps when you grow up you can also afford nice things instead of having to make mental gymnastics to convince yourself that the crap you're relegated to is somehow superior, all to maintain your mental self image.
>being this angsty
>>931059
Filthy casual
>>931052
>Nothing is as simple as a derailler with a friction shifter
Though in general I agree that friction shifting is underrated that's not quite true: questions about adjusting the tension on friction shifters are common, limit screws are apparently too complicated for at least 25% of cyclists to understand, and all derailers are vulnerable to damage or being bent out of alignment.
>>931059
>complaining about no lightning quick multiple step shifting on inferior indexed shifters
>(oh... its existed for ages)
>hurr durr i dont need modern lightning quick multiple step shifting because lucra
u wot m8?
>>931052
>being proudly delusional
In addition to what has been said already, you do know that there are indexed downtube shifters if you love power-shifting that badly. ... Surely you do? .. Right?
>>931056
To be fair though, Campagnolo is the only company that offers multishift up and down.
I wish that there were more OEM offerings with Ultrashift ergos.
>>931096
Nope, Campy patent expired, so microshift does it.
>>931097
Oh really? I know that MS had thumb shifters now, but I didn't know they're doing multiple shifts both ways, too. Neat.
So hub gear is good for ciry bikes ? Since you usually have to shift much more and beforehand in a city with derailleur
>>931052
I did friction shifting for 3 years. Going back to Indexed was a revelation.
I also realized my Derailleur game wasn't on-point, because indexing let me ignore everything but the limit screws
I like Friction shifting, but Indexed is better for riding in traffic. Too many poor shifts leading to slipped gears in the middle of an intersection
>>931056
I was gonna say i can go 2 gears on a full swing left
I'm running 1x8 so it's fun to play with the sticks on the other side
>>931201
One of the best shifting experiences was with these twist shifters that covered the whole bar almost. The weird thing is that they worked really well because it was so smooth and natural to turn my wrist to shift up, and you need to shift up faster on a mountain bike in traffic.
>>931064
SO i agree with you that they're underrated, but you can only be top of the line for a very good reason.
STI's have the best benefit, that they're seemlessly integrated with the handling of the bike, when i get into my hoods i'm not leaving till i'm dead. The only time frictions worked for me was on a flatbar mesa tour runner. they just can't work as well outside of that. They're like goddamm downstem shifting. Fuck it forever shifting is god for city commuting
unless you're fixie in which case fuck the police i say it with authority
>>931201
That doesn't even make any sense, baka.
>>931041
This is an argument that gets tossed into the ring in every IGH vs derailleur debate.
To my knowledge, there is simply no prove whatsoever for it or against it. Manufacturers of premium IGH claim ~95% efficiency in the gearing + 99% efficiency in the drivetrain.
So many argue, the derailleur bike has a 99% efficiency, since it doesn't have the gearing to take away any power. But the 99% is a theoretical number and assumes that you have a a) clean b) new c) well lubricated chain that d) runs in a straight line.
Most gears on a derailleur bike are not in a straight line and to have an "as new" chain on an open drivetrain is a lot of work if you ride your bike in every weather.
I do not argue that derailleurs are less efficient, I only say that the "IGH are not as efficient" argument is maybe not always true.
That said: I commute with my bike and we get nasty weather here in the winter (lots of rain and salt on the streets) and I wanted a drivetrain that I don't have to worry about. I ride a gearbox with a fully closed chainguard. Last time I checked the chain was ~4k km ago. It's been in use for 7.5k km and I have never put a drop of oil on it. The gears run in an oilbath so all the maintenance I have to do is change the oil once a year. The downside is, that you can't fix the gearbox if it has a malfunction.
So in my book derailleurs are
- lightweight
- cheap
- easy to maintain if used in good weather
- easy to repair
- hard to maintain when regularly used in shitty weather
Good and premium IGH (Alfine, Rohloff) and or gearboxes like Pinion are
- reliable (my experience)
- almost maintenance free (complete drivetrain)
- heavier than chains
- much more expensive
- and you cannot repair them yourself
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. Simple as that.
>>931298
>Alfine
>premium
>>931301
I didn't say that, bro. You just interpreted.
>>931298
The part of the chain that is not in a straight line is not under load, so that doesn't matter much unless the chain is stiff. Chains are not stiff.
Cross chaining does not add measurable losses with a multi speed chain. SS chains take poorly to bad chain line, but modern multispeed chains handle it with ease.
Just because a chain is dirty as fuck on the outside doesn't mean it is on the inside. It's the inside that counts.
Oil bath lubrication and complete chain casings are both atypical and not a quality of internal gear hubs. It could be argued that it is the other way around, but then the same can be said for shaft drive, belt drive, direct drive or SS.
Chain driven gear hubs without a chain tensioner also share the chain tension maintainence routine with fixed gear or SS bikes. Such bikes with a chain tensioner can not be used with full chain casings.
I'm not saying full chain casing is not a nice thing to have. I'm saying that it's unrelated to the benefits of an IGH.
You have to accept all the inherent downsides of an IGH (or suffer a complete lack of gearing) to gain the benefits of a chain casing. Those are still benefits of the casing and not the gearing.
>>931305
>forgot pic
>>931305
Your diagram shows that chains range between 92-95% efficiency and that that IGH can be more efficient in some gears. I don't see how this contradicts my argument. Another thing is that a derailleur setup often has a number of gears that are almost identical or should be avoided (extreme crosschaining)
You are right that chain guards are not part of the IGH but with a derailleur, fitting a closed chainguard is impossible (at least I haven't seen such a beast). Closed chainguards are not at all atyptical. The Dutch have them on almost every bike and if you have a frame designed for IGH you can do away with the tensioner (sliding dropouts). Plus, I don't see why I should ignore a huge part of my drivetrain and only look at the IGH. It's part of a system. Oil lubrication is indeed not very common.
I just wanted to point out that IGH can give you a drivetrain that is a lot easier to maintain. And for me this is a huge advantage. I am quite happy to accept the downsides of an IGH (which I know and acknowlege) because for me the advantages of a derailleur system don't compensate for the downsides of the derailleur system. For others it may be different.
The IGH or gearbox is just a fine piece of tech that gives me everything I want and I just don't have to care for it.
I don't want to say that derailleurs are bad. There is a reason why they are succesful and widespread. And I am happy for everyone for who derailleurs work.
For me, they didn't work on my commuter. Salt, mud and water just f**ked the drivetrain up and I had to spend a lot time cleaning and lubricating it. Also, shifting got worse because of that (2012 XT gruppo).
>>931322
>has never been to the Netherlands and/or can not diffrentiate encased chains from full size chainguards
>cherrypicks the three gears of the $1500 IGH, ignoring the miserable performance of the Alfine and inter8 gearbox previously praised
>confirms, sometimes by restating as own, all other points of the counter-argument
I'd say thanks for playing, but I'm leaning more and more to 'u wot m8?'
>>931322
what igh you use bro
>>931325
Butthurt or troll?
1. I live next to the Netherlands its a one hour drive.
2. I didn't praise the Inter 8. I think I tried to state pros and cons for both systems. If you are happy, I can easily acknowledge that most derailleurs are more efficient. But that would just be a small fraction of the power input/output equation.
3. If you say so.
4. I explicitly said on more than one occasion that I refer to my own experience, stating that I acknowledge the pros of a derailleur system. What is your problem, hateboy?
>>931328
Pinion gearbox.
>>931330
1. Take a closer look at what is "chain" (trouser) guards and not fully enclosed chain lubrication holding miniature clean rooms on next visit and have epiphany.
2. Thank you.
4. My dad was killed by an IGH. He was an alcohol.
>>931332
1. You have your terminology wrong. Sadly.
4. That explains a lot.
Friends dont let friends ride a nexus 7/8
>>931363
>freds dont let freds ride a nexus 7/8
As most other people are shitting on IGHs I'll mention an advantage that no one else has, the ability to shift without pedalling or even moving at all. That's one of the things I love most about mine and it has been useful many times, once you experience it and get used to it it can be hard to go back to a derailer. Also shifting is incredibly quick, the difference from shifting just one gear isn't much compared to a derailer but it is when you shift multiple gears at once.
>>931391
>can not shift without freewheeling
>can not shift up hill or during acceleration
>selling it as a benefit
all of my wat
shifting a derailleur system at a stop means holdning down the front brake, leaning slightly on the handlebar and lifting the foot that is still clipped in.
anyone who has a problem with this probably has to wear velcro shoes too.
>>931396
>can not shift without freewheeling
>can not shift up hill or during acceleration
Where did I say that? Have you ever used one? You can do both of those things and smoother than a derailer (at least with the Alfine 11 that I have).
>shifting a derailleur system at a stop means holdning down the front brake, leaning slightly on the handlebar and lifting the foot that is still clipped in.
I don't see how that can possibly work. The only way to shift whilst stopped would be to lift the rear wheel and pedal like half a rotation, which would be incredibly difficult and impractical. With an IGH you don't even need to put a foot down, so you could even be trackstanding at a stop or a tricky trail section.
The only way that this could possibly be a disadvantage is when my buddy sneakily reaches over and shifts into the top gear without me noticing, but then it's easy enough to shift back down.
>>931401
Lifting the back wheel off of the ground to shift is dead easy as long as you have clipless pedals. Lift your foot and you're applying both potential "pedaling force" and lift. As soon as lift is great enough that back wheel friction is low enough to be overcome by pedaling force, you have shift.
Anon is also right in pointing out that many (all?) gear hubs from both SRAM and Shimano will refuse to shift under high load. How high might depend on the expensiveness of the hub, but I have too little experience with the fancy ones to compare. The cheap shit (Nexus) is horrible to shift if you don't have the muscle memory reflex of slowing down the spin during shifts, though.
>>931401
>You can do both of those things
mfw
>>931410
>Lift your foot and you're applying both potential "pedaling force" and lift.
But it takes like half a rotation to shift, more so the more gears you're jumping. I've tried this shit before and it's not easy or practical. Technically possible sure, but in practice few people will.
>Anon is also right in pointing out that many (all?) gear hubs from both SRAM and Shimano will refuse to shift under high load
If you mash hard enough then yes they will stay in gear, although in that case it's simply a matter of easing up slightly (or stop pedalling for the fraction of a second it takes to shift) and all is fine again. With the Alfine 11 I can manage to shift even whilst wheelying.
>>931411
As above, if you pedalling hard enough it simply doesn't shift. The only way you're going to strip gears is if you don't have the cable properly adjusted, when that happens it shift out of gear under load and could potentially damage the internals.
>>931413
It's easy enough that I do it daily without thinking in stop-go traffic. YMMV
Panniers presents this technique with a bit of a problem, but then I reach my right hand back and lift on the saddle instead of pushing down/forward on the bars. Honestly don't see what the problem is.
>>931413
>But it takes like half a rotation to shift
Of the real wheel. That means about 1/10 of a rotation of the cranks if you're in 50/11 gear. You feet are on the crank, not the rear wheel.
>>931413
>The only way you're going to strip gears is if you don't have the cable properly adjusted, when that happens it shift out of gear under load and could potentially damage the internals.
>shift out of gear under load damage the internals
>shifting under load damage internals
Boy, you sure told him!
>>931436
It shifts under load if the shift mechanism is miss aligned. It's not the load that is directly stripping the gears but rather the gears not being fully aligned.
If the cable is correctly adjusted it's essentially impossible to damage the hub by shifting under load, it simply won't shift until the load is reduced to a safe level. The only load caused failure would be if you geared it too low and put a shit load of power down (I've gone as low as 32:18, quite a bit below what Shimano reccomends, with no damage).
![dd_nabeklick_web_2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/r5xyKWf.jpg "dd_nabeklick_web_2[1].jpg")
Why not(combine the disadvantages of) both?
What a fucking joke of a company
>>931492
Explain why it's so bad then? It's actually not a bad idea, essentially replacing double or triple chainrings with the IGH part, giving the advantages of an IGH (shift whilst stopped/not pedalling, less maintenance and faffing about) with a large range but with less weight than something like a Speedhub.
The range could potentially be massive, no reason it couldn't be more than 3 speeds for the IGH where as chainrings are limited to 3.
Sorry to threadjack but does anybody sell any decent cheap shit bikes online with a 3 speed IGH? Was thinking of getting one to ride into the ground for a short regular commute I do...
>>931597
There's a walmart cruiser is a Nexus 3 hub.
>>931396
>>931410
>>931414
You just can't admit that derailleurs have drawbacks, right?
Lifting your backwheel to change gears is just not practical.
But since most of the posts in this thread show that their authors don't seem to be able to grasp that IGHs and derailleurs offer different solutions for the same problems and have their very own advantages and disadvantages and that individuals can indeed favour the one over the other without talking like a fascist retard about the other system.
Want a prove?
> The part of the chain that is not in a straight line is not under load
Prime example of technical ignorance or plain stupid
>>931307
This is oversimplyfied. See pic and the following description:
A Shimano Ultegra 27-speed mountain- bike transmission with three front chainrings (44/32/22 teeth) and a 9-speed rear cluster (12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 30, and 34 teeth). Input cadence is constant at 75 rpm. Driven load power selected were 80 W, 150 W and 200 W. Dotted trend line shows average efficiency of setup tested at all loads decreasing with gear number.
>>931744
Source: Vol 52-2001 of the Human Power magazine, Author Prof. Chester Kyle
>>931744
Whats the deal with the gears the data points are at? like it goes gear number 1, then 3, then 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15??
In what way are the gears numbered? I can't believe that gear 21 is the most efficient, and its neighbour 24 is by far the least, over 5pp lower?? surely the only difference is 21 has more chain angle.
I'm assuming gear 21 is 44x26 and gear 24 is 44x18 as that's the only way I've ever seen gears numbered: (chainring no. minus 1)*9 + (sprocket no.)
>>931042
A derailleur mis adjusted is not going to ruin it.
>>931058
You adjust cable tension then.
brake shifting is hard nngh.
>>931892
Taken from this site:
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.de/2012/01/factors-affecting-bicycle-transmission.html
