# Rohloff setup weight penalty... my calculations...



## 1FG (Apr 19, 2005)

I have been considering a Rohloff conversion for my new bike (Maverick ML8) and I finally got some real weight for most of the Rohloff components. To figure out how much weight this would really add to the conversion, I tabulated the results as followed:

For each Rohloff component, I put the weight (had to guess on a couple of things like the speedbone and the front chain guide), the component that would be replaced (for example Rohloff hub would replace a standard disc hub), this component weight and the different in weight between the two. I think I have most of it (let me know if I forgot anything).

Note that for components that stay the same, the weight does not enter into account as they are assumed to be the same for each build. 
Finally, I assumed pretty high end components on the 3x9 build as if someone is considering splurging $1,500 (list price) on a Rohloff setup, they can afford Hugi hubs and XTR stuff.

The short story is that a Rohloff hub setup is a penalty of around 1.2 kg / 2.8 Lbs.


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2006)

i don't think that the weight penalty is quite that bad. it seems to me it would be closer to 1.5-2 lbs.


----------



## Mr.Bob (Jan 6, 2004)

Nice, thanks for posting. That's almost a worst case (i.e. replacing light components, requiring tensioner, etc) so this a good reference for others. Also, you may be able to get away with a shorter chain for a little less penalty.


----------



## 1FG (Apr 19, 2005)

mechmann_mtb said:


> i don't think that the weight penalty is quite that bad. it seems to me it would be closer to 1.5-2 lbs.


I think that's because most people who do the conversion either want to believe that it's "only 1.5 to 2 Lbs", or because they do a bunch of other upgrades at the same time (wheel, tires, spokes, etc...", all of which could have been done without installing a Rohloff hub to loose some weight.

I'd love to be proven wrong tho...


----------



## tscheezy (Dec 19, 2003)

Barny's 5-Spot gained 9 pounds with the Rohloff.








...Oh, and the 6-Pack rear triangle, Large Marge rims, Endomorph tires, and some other chunky stuff.


----------



## Oslo_biker (Nov 30, 2005)

You’ve got it wrong. Your Speedhub-parts will maximum weigh in at 2379 grams (This is without grip and grip end). In addition you will have a shorter chain, and shorter and thinner spokes. That will give you approximately 80 grams less, getting it down to 2300 grams. If you compare it with a lever shifter from a xtr system, you will even get a shorter grip using a speedhub, but that’s just a small amount. In addition, there is no reason for using a chain guide. That's just for extremely hard use only. That will get you down to 2235 grams. 

Your price comparison is not right either. You didn’t take into account the added value of the higher functionality with a speedhub, and that's really what you’re paying for. Well, I personally would say it's a lot higher than the price difference between a full XT group and a speedhub (I have been using speedhubs extensively). The drivetrain you should really compare it to is the XT group.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

1FG, your calcs are close, but contain errors. It should look like this:










I think your motivations are wrong, too. I am frugal, and I always ran XT/LX parts mixes before purchasing my Speedhubs. That is what I normally compare Speedhub weights to, and the 1.5-2.0 pound estimate holds true. I've included those weight comparisons in my calculations.

As Oslo Biker pointed out, there are other (minor) weight savings to be had, including shorter (and thinner) spokes, less chain, and perhaps even a lighter, singlespeed-specific crankset.

Further, a true weight weenie could shave an easy 600g off this setup by running a bike with Speedhub-specific dropouts, 32x13 ring & cog, and a rear rim brake.

Well, actually, a "true" weight weenie would likely never touch a Speedhub with a 10 foot pole, but you get the idea.

Here is a draft version of a Speedhub weight worksheet I put together recently, using weights I personally verified. (Click image for larger version)


----------



## Oslo_biker (Nov 30, 2005)

I just want to point out that Nate and I got the same result. The Salsa chainring was not embedded in my calculations (because it is not a Rohloff part), and I did not subtract caliper bolts. If I did that, I would end up with end up with 2419, and that’s just 2 grams off Nate’s worksheet. Thanks Nate.


----------



## qayaq_alaska (Sep 12, 2005)

*I ain't no weight weenie...*

far from it. I have very little interest in racing and in general weight is a serious thought, but w/ Fatbikes we're laying up reliability is clearly the # 1 consideration...not weight.

Layed up on solid horizontal drops, w/a lightweight BMX dropout style tensioner and w/ precise lower end BB, CR and spindle up front...producing a perfect chainline...I don't think you'd find you need the Rtensioner OR the Rguide.

On my fatbikes I am running a single canti on the rear so that eliminates the disc paraphanalia.

Given that fatbike wheels are just plain heavy...with large rims, tubes and tires...the ratio of weight saving is even less.

I would have to agree with the 1.5lb figure.

____________

I just dunked my Rhub in overflow (free standing water) on the frozen river I ride...at 0 dF...try riding out of that one with a derailleur and a cassette...save a pound here - there...hah...

Get over the sticker shock...

We don't need no steenkeen derailleur!

Rohloff Patriot

M:thumbsup:


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

I weighted my bike before and after the transformation , I ended up with a 650 g more with the Rohloff.
I had XTshifters, XTR deraillers , Cross MAX rear wheel.
Including the tensioner . 
I didn't have to install the speedbone.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 2, 2006)

I am thinking of a tandem bicycle tour (around 3,000 miles) in rural part of China, where neither LX, XT, XTR nor Speedhub are available. We intend to pedal slowly, enjoy the scenery, smell the wild flowers on the way, probably covering no more than 30 miles a day.

While we are not exactly going off-roading, the road will have pot-holes, and we may venture into mud-trails, (just some ways of getting into remote villages) there will be climbs, and where the route are too tough we may even strap the bike on donkey's back.

Weight, while important, may not be as significant as we may be carrying 50 to 60 lbs of luggages with us, in addition to a combined 230 Ibs weight.

I presumed Rohloff would be more reliable, and certainly would cause less wear to the chain and cassette. Probably outlast several LX/XT/XTR chainset, chain, cassette, etc. Considering the journey on tandem, I may have to bring some spares along.

If I were to consider the spares that we have to carry with us, what would be the weight and cost penalty comparison like?

i.e. assuming everything is new, all others being equal, for 3,000 miles:

would Rohloff tackle that easily, what would need to be changed or service within that 3,000 miles? oil? tools? etc.

similarly, if I am using LX, XT, XTR, how many spare cassettes, chainrings, chains, tools, etc. would I need to carry, if any?

While I appreciate the weight penalties may be different depending on each application, I truly would like to know what would it be in my case.

Thanks.


----------



## Rainman (Apr 18, 2004)

The Rohloff Speedhub would easily handle that journey, no maintenance needed apart from oiling the chain.

R.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 2, 2006)

Perhaps I should not restrict myself to just Rohloff/Shimano comparison, use Rohloff/SRAM if you like, all I am looking for is a reliable drivetrain with minimal cost and weight penalty over 3,000 miles of roads filled with pot-holes, some muddy trails... Oh, forgot to mention sand (into Tibet)

What would an average XTR/X.O drivetrain (chainrings, cassette, chain, etc.) last in those terrain? 1,000 miles?
Similarly, what is the average lifespan of XT/X.9 and LX/X.7?

Other considerations are the skillset required to service the speedhub versus XTR/XT/LX/X.0/X.9/X.7? I think I should be able to handle the XTR and the likes by myself while I am not so sure about speedhub. When I open the speedhub would I expect a bunch of springs, ball bearings and what have you to spring out and I wouldn't know where nor how to put them back together.

Thanks Rainman, it is comforting to know that it is only oil plus whatever tools that I need to change the oil for Rohloff for the 3,000 miles journey. Just to be on the safe side, what is the typical items that may first break in the case of Rohloff?

While certain parts of journey will have truly enjoyable with beautiful scenery but with Murphy's law, we will more than likely to get stuck in some places with broken parts where an hour more is a torture;-p


----------



## Rainman (Apr 18, 2004)

No..no. You will not need any tools to open the Rohloff hub. You will not need to do an oil change after the initial change when you are running the hub in...until another 5,000 k's.

All I carried on my trips in Australia was a spare set of shifter cables.

I met other long distance Rohloff riders who didn't even carry spare cables. One old guy had busted his handlebar twistgrip shifter in a crash and used two old rubber lawnmower handles attached to his top tube to change gears ... :eekster: 

Rohloff hubs are very tough. People use them to traverse whole continents every year without mishap under some very strenuous conditions, like sand, dust, snow, mud..etc..etc.. :thumbsup: 

Really, the trip you are planning should be nothing to a Rohloff hub. A fresh oil change just before you leave, maybe a set of spare cables...and go.

Just keep the chain lubed and you should be fine.


R.


----------



## tscheezy (Dec 19, 2003)

I'm a little puzzled at this concept that a singlespeed drivetrain (or a Rohloff in this case) is somehow impervious to wear. I mean, I have a singlespeed for my townie bike and the street grime that ends up on the chain wears the parts out plenty fast. You could run a stainless steel chainring for durablility, and obviously the Rohloff cog is going to last a long time, but the chain will stretch out (the pins and rollers will wear) eventually. I think I would carry a spare chain, chainring, and cog. Of course changing the cog is a mission on the Rohloff without some burly tools like a chain whip...


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

Wensaiw,

Contact the guy at this link: http://www.blue-ant.tv/takeaseat/home.php

He ought to be in Mexico right about now, enroute from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, to the southern tip of the South American continent. He's doing it solo (sort of ) on a Speedhub-equipped tandem.

Along the way he's posting updates to his site, and checking and replying to email.

I know for a fact he requested some sort of service or assistance from Rohloff while he stopped over in San Francisco. For what, I don't know. In any case, he ought to be far enough along to give you some idea of what spares you might carry along.

I agree with Tscheezy that, as a minimum, chain and chainrings should be in the pack.


----------



## qayaq_alaska (Sep 12, 2005)

*I agree...*

In all your Rohloff fervor...don't be silly by not packing some backup parts; especially where you're going...be self contained...you're not going to openup the hub - I think everyone's concensus here is the the core of the hub is reliable in the extreme - but I would expect a Rcog, Stainless CR, Chain and extra links, backup oil and cables would be warranted!

I would take it a step futher with the wear...I think SSs, especially the Rohloff, put WAY more stress on your drivetrain and wear parts as quick if not quicker than a trad drivetrain...be sure you have your chainline spot-on-exact!

Good luck

M



tscheezy said:


> I'm a little puzzled at this concept that a singlespeed drivetrain (or a Rohloff in this case) is somehow impervious to wear. I mean, I have a singlespeed for my townie bike and the street grime that ends up on the chain wears the parts out plenty fast. You could run a stainless steel chainring for durablility, and obviously the Rohloff cog is going to last a long time, but the chain will stretch out (the pins and rollers will wear) eventually. I think I would carry a spare chain, chainring, and cog. Of course changing the cog is a mission on the Rohloff without some burly tools like a chain whip...


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

qayaq_alaska said:


> I would take it a step futher with the wear...I think SSs, especially the Rohloff, put WAY more stress on your drivetrain and wear parts as quick if not quicker than a trad drivetrain...be sure you have your chainline spot-on-exact!


I don't agree with you on this.
A SS ( or Rohloff ) bike has a straight chainline , so the chain doesn't twist hundreds of times a day , and the wearing is equal on both CR ,cogs and chain as opposed to uneven wear on a cassette. The middle ring and the cogs you use more are gonna wear first then you'll have to change the whole thing.

On a SS , you turn around the cog and the chainring and you have another couple of thousands KM to go.....


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

Rohloff gear hub might have a efficiency penalty in nominal conditions. The standard bicycle chain transmission is extremely efficient. With the Rohloff, your efficiency is the efficiency of a single speed X the efficiency of the gear hub. The Rohloff is bound to be less efficient. But when the conditions get ugly, all bets are off and Rohloff wins.


----------



## nimble (Aug 2, 2004)

1FG said:


> I have been considering a Rohloff conversion for my new bike (Maverick ML8) and I finally got some real weight for most of the Rohloff components. To figure out how much weight this would really add to the conversion, I tabulated the results as followed:
> 
> For each Rohloff component, I put the weight (had to guess on a couple of things like the speedbone and the front chain guide), the component that would be replaced (for example Rohloff hub would replace a standard disc hub), this component weight and the different in weight between the two. I think I have most of it (let me know if I forgot anything).
> 
> ...


Great points to consider, I went from king hubs & xtr stuff & now my bike weighs more in the rear than in the front , vs (previously heavier in the front with the front shock & lighter in the rear with std cassette drivetrain.)
Worth the switch? I'm still in the break in period. (Ask yourself: Is hub weight plus Gears 5,6,7 roughness, worth the incredible shifting & reported durability... Some people say yes, other sell their hubs on e-bay.


----------



## Rainman (Apr 18, 2004)

Well, the "roughness" goes away if you ride it enough.. 

I have ridden some Rohloff hubs that were amazingly smooth, they had a LOT of miles on them. 

Some of the hubs had done huge mileages across continents and were truly "run-in".

The weight thing is mostly in your mind. I had this problem too at first, but in all honesty it goes away after you get on the bike and start riding it. Then you just don't notice it anymore.

I get off my Rohloff bike onto my very light singlespeed bike and the SS feels sort of "supertwitchy" after the solid stability of the Rohloff machine..  until I get used to the feeling again, then i'm fine.. :thumbsup: 

Initial cost, a bit more weight, setup and run-in are the downside of the Rohloff Speedhub, but to me they are nothing compared to the incredible reliability of the hub, the way it just keeps on going.....and going....and going, no matter what the conditions.

Personally, I think it is one of the most under-rated bicycle components in the whole bike industry. I would like to see Rohloff get the kudos it deserves for such a fine reliable product.


R.


----------



## dispepsic (Jul 19, 2006)

I love my Rohloff.


----------

