what do you guys think will be the next move in cycling. i think Rohloff is a good example - it has a few kinks to be worked out needs to be lightened up, but from all the reviews i have read, and the people i know who have the hub, they say the system is bomb proof. but i am not talking about the hub, there is a modified version that goes in the center of the frame; thus taking the weight off the rear hub and putting it in the center of the bike.
check it out
could this system work for road cycling? i think even now with the extra weight of the Rohloff hub, we can still come in at UCI weight of 15 -15.5 lbs.
here is a pic of a bike that uses the system, it is not a road bike, but just so you get the picture.
What does everyone think, any does anyone think this could work for a road bike? more info for anyone intrested http://www.g-boxx.org/
weight vs range of gears and reliability at a light weight would be deciding factors as is cost
It would be good to see some one come up with a new solution. Get Shimano and Campy to get their act together.
Nah. I have seen the Rohloff. It is a giant pig. Even with all of the other components off of an MTB it weighs a tonne. I think we will see the electric Record way before something more revolutionary...i think even now with the extra weight of the Rohloff hub, we can still come in at UCI weight of 15 -15.5 lbs
My opinion is that no internal hub (Rohloff included) will be useable (on the road) until the ratios are more suited for the application.
Rohloff's ratios are very evenly spaced, but that's not what's required for road riding. As the gear ratio gets "longer", the ratios need to get closer and closer together. The jumps between the top few gears need to be very, very small.
Until someone addresses this, an internal hub (regardless of weight) will never be a practical alternative to what we have now.
I hear you. The problem is that, given the inefficiency of the engine (i.e., us!), there is little to gain from greatly increased mechanical efficiency versus lighter weight (hence this forum), assuming that the system maintains adequate reliability.i really hope campy bypasses this electronic shifting and get with G-BOXX or make their own standard
The claims that G Boxxers make about mechanical failure of derailleur-based systems belies the fact that it is pneumatic tires that are the leading cause of mechanical failure in road racing and that the rate of failure of modern race components (Dura-Ace, Record) is probably adequate, given the advantage in weight saving.
Additionally, the derailleur-based system IS Campagnolo's own standard.
IMO, the next step (granted, an evolution, not a revolution) is to get the indexing for the rear derailler *AT* the rear derailler... instead of 5' away at the shifter. That *might* require 2 cables instead of one, but I believe they could be very small. Once the detents are at the derailler, adjustments will be a thing of the past.
Once again; my opinion only...
uphillisgood wrote:IMO, the next step (granted, an evolution, not a revolution) is to get the indexing for the rear derailler *AT* the rear derailler... instead of 5' away at the shifter. That *might* require 2 cables instead of one, but I believe they could be very small. Once the detents are at the derailler, adjustments will be a thing of the past
Shimano has had a go at this, atleast once, and the Mavic Zap system worked this way as well.
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 10 Replies
- 1547 Views
Last post by alcatraz
Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:27 am
- 4 Replies
- 318 Views
Last post by NJCyclist
Wed May 23, 2018 3:09 pm
- 9 Replies
- 673 Views
Last post by 2old4this
Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:48 am
- 8 Replies
- 435 Views
Last post by MrMojo
Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:31 pm
- 11 Replies
- 381 Views
Last post by Calnago
Thu May 24, 2018 10:53 pm