what bike is this?
Next time you complain about your morning commute, spare a thought for Dr Steven Fabes who has cycled 53,285 miles over the last six years on his mission to help and empower people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3440892/Meet-incredible-doctor-CYCLED-globe-treating-patients-73-countries-held-gunpoint-cobra-face-off.html
>>923071
http://www.cyclingthe6.com/p/equipment.html
Fuck doctors
>>923082
>36 spokes front
>32 spokes rear
He's just a rich fuck throwing money at problems.
>>923098
I'm guessing he just got a deal on a 32 spoke Rohloff, those things are expensive.
That or he calculated spoke length so he would only need 2 lengths of spokes.
idk about the bike, but I'm jelly of his Hilleberg tent. I've been wanting to get that exact tent for a while but I'm a poorfag.
>>923071
Why does everyone have to have a cause for doing anything these days? Isnt enjoying shit enough?
>>923149
Having a cause helps you through the tough times when things aren't fun anymore. It also makes you looks like an inspirational responsible member of society instead of a self indulgent manchild.
>>923104
>>923098
> Rohloff
His website says he's had to replace it four times. Not exactly a shining recommendation for a tour this hardcore
I'm assuming he is sponsored by them to even keep using it. That would be so much money and suffering for nothing
He's also running some kind of weird rims... magnesium something something...
Weird choices.
>>923149
It does annoy me when rinky-dink bike tourers riding across the USA try to get sponsorships or say they're "riding for (stupid minor social cause)"
But this guy has a legitimate cause.. he's an actual doctor who work on poor people in the 3rd world. The sponsors get their money's worth since he does media interviews every month
>>923107
>Hilleberg tent
Damn those are pricey tents.
>>923157
If hes a doctor why doesn't he just help people then? Why do people need a guy riding on a bike in order to donate money?
>>923156
It doesn't look like he's sponsored by them. They just have good customer service. The flange failure problem is pretty well known, but Rohloff denies that it's a widespread problem. Phil Wood makes a hub shell that is probably more reliable and comes in a 48h version.
The gear failures are more rare...weird that he went through two hubs because of gear failure so quickly.
>>923172
Rohloff is really not as durable as they pretend. They know most people that can afford a Rohloff are rich dentists(doctors) and rich freds(anti-racer retrogrouch type) that really won't put their equipment through the wringer. So their failure rate is low, yes, because it is not as underbuilt as carbon bike equipment meant for pros, but being ridden by 250lb fat rich people, or people that race, and because not many people who can afford a Rohloff can afford enough time off to put it on a real tour.
I'm not saying they will break like this guy's but I'm saying that they're not invulnerable black boxes like people pretend.
>>923177
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'd assume that they're mostly used on nice-tier beater commuters which tend to get abused and neglected a bit more than some guy whose life depends on the hub working perfectly in the middle of the Taklamakan desert.
But what do I know, I've never had a Rolhoff or a Taklamakan.
>>923208
> used on nice-tier beater commuters which tend to get abused and neglected a bit more
No. Nice commuters that cost several thousand dollars are usually taken inside and babied.
Even if they're locked up outside, that's not the kind of abuse a touring bike will see, fording creeks, riding in rain, dealing with all sorts of dirt and sand. Mile for mile, a guy gone for years in 3rd world countries is going to have a lot less service done on his hub than someone living in a city.
Commuting is not hardcore.
>>923218
>commuters don't ride in the rain
Oh, you're one of those.
>>923223
You ride in the rain for hours on end?
>>923218
I really want to try an IGH, but they all seem stupid and all have drawbacks
There's that NuVinci hub that has variable transmission (no specific gears) that gets my nerdhole all wet. But it's 4lbs and not rated for a touring bike... plus $$
Oh well. I hope people keep buying them until the tech gets good enough to buy one. Then I'll get an off-trend rigid 1x MTB and rock it with fat tires and dick brakes. Beatiful
>>923177
>>923172
I did some more searching and found his explanation on the Rohloff:
> Rohloff
> There is a very well established procedure for dealing with a broken Rohloff – it involves a pained sigh, a great deal of shrugging and a telephone call to Germany. And that’s not exactly reassuring.
> I’ve been standing by the Rohloff like you might a criminal in the family. I am on my fifth Rohloff Hub. FIFTH! Here’s how it went down:
> First one needed replacing after just 10,000 km when the flange broke (so not an internal failure, but a crack in the shell leaving me unable to tension a spoke). A new wheel arrived within five days to Khartoum. Rohloff report the incidence of this failure is one in five thousand. I know of two more cases. A coincidence? (I don’t know 15,000 cycle tourers).
> The next one lasted about 45,000 km, until I lost four gears. The sliding clutch rings had failed. Rohloff replaced the hub in Australia in three days. All for free of course. Then after almost 20,000 km I lost four gears again. A new hub appeared in Mongolia in 4 days, again all courtesy of the company. Recently I’ve developed excessive play in the rear wheel and Rohloff are giving me another entire unit, the cause of the failure is not yet known.
> A few things are clear: Rohloff are certainly not the ‘fit and forget’ they’re often considered to be. Plenty of riders are reporting issues. However their customer service remains impeccable. The obvious pros of the hub: No tinkering with front and rear mechs (good for the more reticent brand of mechanic like me), chains last longer as they don’t move between cogs, no need to replace cassettes and derailleurs, no mud or ice to clog up your gear mechs, you have the ability to change through multiple gears without pedaling, stronger rear wheel, no need to worry about broken derailleurs in trucks or on planes.
But…
(cont.)
>>923386
> If one goes one wrong, it will be a major hassle at the very least. And plainly they do go wrong, much more frequently than Rohloff would have you believe, although they will virtually never leave you stuck - often an internal failure means the loss of some gears, not the entire mechanism. They are also very expensive (budget in the regular oil changes as well, not just the hub) and you usually need to use special parts for replacements, and you often won’t be able to find these locally: cables, shifters, oil change kit, sprockets. Of course the reduced range of gears and absence of a very low gear when compared to the standard setup are also drawbacks.
> It’s getting mighty tough to defend them, even with the company’s trademark personal touch. If you really don’t like to tinker with bikes, and if you have the money to spare, perhaps it’s still a good investment, then again perhaps not. The jury is still out.
>>923104
Reading the list of components he used it's obvious money wasn't an issue at all.
>>923156
He's just rich so he doesn't care. Also magnesium rims, while super-expensive have the advantage of near no wear when using rim brakes (not worth it but when you just have too much money why not just buy the best?).
>>923177
>Rohloff
>retrogrouch
Yeah no. It's state-of-the-art by cycling standard. Only the Pinion concept is newer.
>>923392
Retrogrouches are attracted to IGHs, just like they're attracted to time-trial aerobar bar-end shifters and steel. Because it provides a contrarian viewpoint that is somehow rooted in the past, and therefore superior.
>>923248
Are you an engineer? Can you explain (in factual, non-e-peen terms like "hurr hard core rrrawr!") why X amount of rain riding hours is easier or harder on rims when done in say 4-hour segments, compared with X amount of rain riding hours done in 1-hour segments?
I'm not an engineer so I'll defer to your expertise in this matter. I'd have assumed the wet/dry cycle is even worse than getting wet and staying wet. I'm curious why it would be worse to get wet and stay wet until those X hours of riding are completed.
I look forward to learning from you. Thanks in advance, engineer.
>>923399
Here's your engineer answer.
Does your commuter bike have 53,285 miles on it?
>>923400
>e-peen response
So you don't actually know, then.
>>923400
Roadie suburbanites think they could hang on city streets in downtown NYC/Philly/SF/etc when they ride on pristine roads with their 25c fredmobile and full kit.
Try cutting between a city bus and a line of angry cabs while dodging pot holes in the rain on a street covered in dirt and grit.
Your crabon shitbox can't handle big tires, fenders, or being locked up daily. Your crabon fibre shitbox is for adult men who want to pretend they are professional athletes.
> muh miles
I can bike to the beach, to another city, to work, all on the same bike. I go slower than you. I see more than you. I can get off my bike and get food without feeling like a neon retard.
FUCK ROADIES. FUCK ULTEGRA
> tfw you spent $2,000 wagebux on a useless racing road bike that you can't mount a rack to
>>923402
That's not an e-peen response. More miles is more wear. If you weren't of the mind that commuting was the hardest core thing ever, you'd be able to get it through your head. There are several other factors, like the amount of rough 3rd would country roads it sees, and the additional load of luggage.
>>923403
What are you even ranting about now? Are you an idiot? 53,285 miles is the distance the tourist in the OP rode.
>>923399
Because bearing seals resist some water, but the more and more you flood them, it becomes increasingly likely water will penetrate the seals and wash away bearing and chain grease instead of evaporating or flushing out. If you clean your drive train after rain, that means that the drive train has gotten progressively grimier over those 4 hours, since it isn't cleaned multiple times in that span, allowing not only increased wear, but grit to work it's way into pivots and bushings.
>>923404
I'm not asking you to brag about how many miles your surrogate e-peen owner has ridden.
The question was why a component run in a commuting scenario would last for more miles than in a touring scenario.
53k miles over six years isn't as high a number as you think. That's less than 190 miles a week. A normal person riding 15 miles to work has pretty similar mileage. If a part fails on a commute, the consequences are minimal: you're late for work. So the incentive to be autistic about preventive maintenance is low, compared to riding in a developing country where you could be hundreds of miles from anywhere reasonable when you get stranded.
You mentioned rain. Specifically, "rain for hours on end". So your argument is that continuous rain is worse than rain followed by dry out followed by more rain.
Why is this? The miles are the same. It's not the miles. So why is continuous rain more stressful on the part than rain and dry alternated?
Thanks in advance for your well informed, logical response.
>>923406
>if you clean your drive train after rain
A commuter doesn't do this. Maybe once a week. Maybe after the rainy spell ends. They're not keeping a cyclone tool and gear floss at their desk at work, that's for sure. At best a rag to wipe the worst of the mud off the frame and fenders before coming inside.
>>923408
>A commuter doesn't do this. Maybe once a week. Maybe after the rainy spell ends.
And the tourer is probably only cleaning the drive train when he gets to a town, also possibly after a rainy spell. Except he has ridden a weeks worth of commuter miles in a day.
>>923407
Most bike commuters don't spend 2 hours a day commuting by bike 6 days a week.
>The question was why a component run in a commuting scenario would last for more miles than in a touring scenario.
You're the one that asserted otherwise with no proof or explanation except you felt commuting was more abusive to the bike.
> If a part fails on a commute, the consequences are minimal: you're late for work. So the incentive to be autistic about preventive maintenance is low, compared to riding in a developing country where you could be hundreds of miles from anywhere reasonable when you get stranded.
Which is why tourers try to pick reliable parts, because by necessity they are going to be abused and neglected. A commuter doesn't have to worry about that.
Basically your entire argument boils down to
>hes a rich fuck i bet he takes care of his bike
>im a poor fuck with a beater and never once lubed my chain which is probably stretched to 2 times its normal length and the chain skips whenever i pedal and i lock it outside and this is what a person with a nice commuter bike with a rohloff would do
Don't try to move the goal posts. The comparison is a tourist with a Rohloff vs a commuter with a Rohloff.
>>923409
>the comparison is a tourist with a Rohloff vs a commuter with a Rohloff
That's the only comparison I've ever been making here. You're moving the goalposts by ranting about poorfags vs rich freds and cities are somehow magically a place where rain never falls. I'm asking out of technical curiosity and you're preoccupied with convincing me you're a rich badass. So I'll concede you're really bad ass and your wealth is astounding. Now let's return to the topic at hand.
The guy replaced his rolhoff four times in 53k miles. That's a little under 2 years of commute miles.
Let's talk about why he would not perform preventive maintenance riding in exotic third world countries anywhere near as much as a person riding back and forth in a familiar area. Why do you suppose that would be?
>>923411
>>923208
>>923218
You are deliberately taking the argument out of context.
>The guy replaced his rolhoff four times in 53k miles. That's a little under 2 years of commute miles.
You don't commute 30mi/day. Some people do, but you're just trying to e-peen now.
>Let's talk about why he would not perform preventive maintenance riding in exotic third world countries anywhere near as much as a person riding back and forth in a familiar area. Why do you suppose that would be?
And you've continued to ignore arguments you don't like while trying to act as if you have the upper hand, such as being forced to ford rivers, ride off road, ride on 3rd world roads, and loading an extra 50-70lbs of luggage, constantly.
As for rain, the longer you ride in the rain without maintenance in the rain, the worse things get. Even wiping things down with a rag, and being able to bring the bike somewhere rain isn't pouring on it helps, and it is much easier to do that in shorter intervals for a commuter.
Your argument is still that a commuter is by default a lazy fuck, and a tourist must be meticulous. Since you're a lazy fuck, you don't commute 30mi/day.
>>923414
Can you leave your ego out of this please? I already agreed you're a hard core badass who rides more and knows more about bikes and has more money than I could ever dream. What else would soothe your fragile e-peen? Ask and you shall receive.
But back to the topic. The guy's parts are failing at an astounding rate. What's so hard about an oil change every 5000 km? Maybe not in every village but he should have had opportunities to do this. Why didn't he?
>>923407
it's 53k miles over harsh terrain and varying temperatures
unless you're a commuter in africa, the steppes, sand ridden hellholes, etc
I love /n/
OP - what bike frame is this?
/n/ - ::AGGRESSIVE ARGUEMENT ABOUT UNRELATED TOPIC::
>>923403
Holy shit how blasted is your butt
