But parts wearing out faster is good for the economy, right? The only other option is for wider hubs which of course causes issues with chain line in extreme gears.Might be a fair concern. Current 12-speed chains are already barely wider than 3/16”.
As we keep narrowing the chain, where’s the breaking point? Both figuratively and literally. 💥
Or short of that, when do we get to a ridiculously short lifespan/replacement cycle.
Yup. And wider hubs also obviously mean wider chainstays, so your heels and/or cranks can hit them, unless they spec a wider crank (high Q-factor) along with it.But parts wearing out faster is good for the economy, right? The only other option is for wider hubs which of course causes issues with chain line in extreme gears.
So no 148mm Boost spacing for road bikes?Yup. And wider hubs also obviously mean wider chainstays, so your heels and/or cranks can hit them, unless they spec a wider crank (high Q-factor) along with it.
Which many ppl don’t want, as it impacts pedaling efficiency and aerodynamics to be in a more splayed-out position like that. 😕
So, it kinda mostly falls to narrower cog spacing to shoehorn more gears in there.
Though rim-brake road could go to 135mm frame spacing w/out the poop hitting the fan.
Road bikes usually have short chainstays, which make very wide hubs difficult to accommodate without causing the problems discussed earlier.So no 148mm Boost spacing for road bikes?
The slam on IGHs are that they’re simply not quite as efficient as chain drives, aka they lose watts— though a high-quality IGH such as Rohloff can narrow the gap a good deal (for a price/$$$).How about an eight speed internally-geared hub with a cassette and thirteen more gears? That's 104 gears with one chain ring, 208 with two and 312 with a triple.
Great articles!Interesting test/comparo on the efficiency of various IGHs, CVT, and single-speed chain drive:
How do gearbox systems compare in terms of drivetrain efficiency? And what is the difference in cycling speed between gearbox options?www.cyclingabout.com
And also one on 1x chain-drive efficiency vs 2x:
Table of Contents The TestThe ResultsWhy Is 1X Less Efficient Than 2X?What Is The Speed Difference Between Drivetrains?How…www.cyclingabout.com
That’s really interesting… a hybrid IGH-chain drive approach.
This is a pretty cool concept. I'm sure the cost will come down over time. But being proprietary... I don't see it going anywhere.That’s really interesting… a hybrid IGH-chain drive approach.
With the main goal to be a 1x drivetrain with 2x gearing ratios, courtesy a 2-speed hub that provides a ‘virtual small chainring’ in one speed, and ‘locks up and gets out of the way’ for the other speed (‘virtual big chainring’).
IOW, they’re using a 2-speed hub to get rid of the front derailleur and second chainring.
Pretty neat, and probably more efficient than any pure IGH drive, even Rohloff.
But, the cost is a bit of a shocker (2400 GBP, which is about $3400 USD) for everything you need, including their rim (why are you required to use theirs only?).
It definitely can be more efficient.Plus, no matter how much they insist otherwise, it’s likely not as efficient as a chain-drive, as it has both chain-drive and IGH frictional losses to contend with (just less of each).
I remain a bit dubious about that.[The PowerShift hybrid IGH-1x chain drive] definitely can be more efficient [than chain drive].
In the 1:1 ratio, the hub is locked. So there's no loss in efficiency. But you have a straighter chainline from the 1x, so it would definitely be more efficient than a 2x setup.
When the hub is unlocked in the 0.7 ratio, you'll lose a bit from the internal gears. But you still have the benefit of a straighter chainline. And you also have a larger front ring, which is more efficient than a small ring on a traditional setup. So it could be a wash.
While a few gear ratios in the unlocked mode may be less efficient, the overall average efficiency is most likely equal or higher.
Agree with most of that.I don't care what anybody else feels that they "need" to buy...My line in the sand is 10 in back, and two in the front.....Back in the 80, I used to race on a 13-18 6 speed freewheel, and I had enough gears. I find that gears that I used to use, I'm no longer able to get rolling. Now I'm using a 12-25, and at times, I'm stressed pushing a 53x25 over rollers. I've got a "thing" about not wanting to use the 39.....There is NO way I'd ever go 1X......The monster cassette you have to use on them, looks ridiculous.....Part of the reason that Shimano and the other guys are making cassette with more cogs, is because of the demand for easier gearing (don't get me started on that subject).....You can't have cassettes with huge gaps between cogs, so they just add more cogs in-between.
I predict that 1x systems will soon have 13, 14, of 15 cogs in back.