# NuVinci n360 conversion



## stoney bones (Mar 28, 2011)

Looking for conversion info. I called my local LBS (they are authorized dealer) to get quote on price and parts. They didnt call back so I sent an e-mail to the manufacturer...they didnt respond either. so here i am asking the community.

I have a surly pugsley i would like to put this on. what im curious about is, what all needs to be changed/modified? I have almost decided to pull the trigger but i want to make sure im not going to be running into unforeseen costs. 

another question is, can you use a surly MWOD crank with this hub?


----------



## Tripower (Jan 4, 2011)

*Just did mine*

Easy conversion. I decided to lace it to a Rolling Darryl. I removed the small and large chain rings. Of course, I removed the front and rear derailers.

Do you have any specific questions?


----------



## stoney bones (Mar 28, 2011)

does the nuvinci come with everything you need to install it? like the chain and rear sprocket? and will this work with a MWOD or is that not advised/necessary?


----------



## Tripower (Jan 4, 2011)

The NuVinci comes with a 18 tooth cog. You will have to decide if it is the correct size for your riding and front chain ring. Surly cogs fit the NuVinci. You will need to shorten your chain. It should work with the MWOD.


----------



## jnl1105 (Oct 3, 2011)

I got mine from bikewagon.com (did an ebay make offer of $300) and it came with rear sprocket, all hardware, cables but no cable houses


----------



## Rob_E (Nov 22, 2010)

I am not familiar with the quirks of the Pugsley, although I would like to be at some point, but here are my observations about fitting a Nuvinci to my Long Haul Trucker:

Chainline: Nuvinci has a fairly wide chain line. I had to keep that in mind when ordering my bottom bracket.

Grip shifter compatibility: Some handlebars won't work, but I think most mountain bike bars would be compatible.

Gearing: Nuvinci has a lowest allowable ratio of the rear cog to the front chainring. 1:1.8, I believe. If my math is right, that makes a front ring of 33 with an 18 tooth cog.

My original plan with my Trucker was to start with traditional gearing and eventually convert it, but when I realized that I'd also be replacing my bottom bracket, and maybe my chain rings, and possibly my handlebars, it suddenly looked more cost efficient to just buy all of those parts with the Nuvinci in mind. It's entirely possible that you could just add the Nuvinci and be ready to roll, but you might want to look at the various components and make sure it will all work properly. Fortunately it sounds like there are some Pugsley/Nuvinci owners who will know what pitfalls, if any, there are.


----------



## Canoe (May 10, 2011)

Rob_E said:


> ... Gearing: Nuvinci has a lowest allowable ratio of the rear cog to the front chainring. 1:1.8, I believe. If my math is right, that makes a front ring of 33 with an 18 tooth cog...


Some numbers...


----------



## sbloom (Jun 20, 2012)

I dont really understand gear inches and ratios. I am having an n360 w/18 tooth cog built for the rear on a 26x2.25 wheel/tire. I presently have a schlumpf hsd with a 28 tooth chainring. Am i ok as far as the nuvinci warranty? And can you tell me what the the lowest ratio would be in terms of rear cog teeth.

Thanks


----------



## Canoe (May 10, 2011)

sbloom said:


> ... n360 w/18 tooth cog built for the rear on a 26x2.25 wheel/tire. I presently have a schlumpf hsd with a 28 tooth chainring...





Rob_E said:


> ...Gearing: Nuvinci has a lowest allowable ratio of the rear cog to the front chainring. 1:1.8, I believe. If my math is right, that makes a front ring of 33 with an 18 tooth cog...


For 18t on the 360 and your 26" wheel, this puts you on line three of green on the upper section of the chart I posted. Starts with 33 18 1.83.

Your 28 to 18 is a ratio of 1.56, below the 1.8 recommended, and not warrantied. 
That said, it's been done. 
From my notes I collected reports from others:
28 to 18 for 1.56
32 to 18 for 1.78


aTomOfAllTrades said:


> ...I've run mine at 32/18 quite a bit on singletrack and noticed the drag while grinding up long hills. This past weekend I rode 30 miles on it at 28/18 and it was even more noticeable. If you're not doing heavy climbing and looking at more of an explorer bike that you don't ever want to have maintenance issues, it is the ultimate in reliable gearing (seriously, you will never break anything on this hub, only need to adjust the shifter cable tension once in a blue moon)......however, if you're wanting a super-low gear for loaded climbing, you will be working hard in that low gear...


To reach the minimum drive ratio with 18t on the 360, you have to up the chainring to 33t or more.
Keeping the 28t front:
16t on the 360 gives a ratio of 1.75
15t on the 360 gives a ratio of 1.87 (if there's a 15t that will fit - NuVinci says 16t to 22t)


----------



## sbloom (Jun 20, 2012)

thanks for the great response time and answer. I understand that other companies cogs fit the 360. so maybe i can a fifteen and not have to change out the Schlumpf chain wheel.

Does anybody know the brand cog that fits the Nuvinci?


----------



## Rob_E (Nov 22, 2010)

I don't know a specific brand. I would ask on the Fallsbrook forums. There's two factors you want to consider: Which cogs will fit. Which cogs will come off. Maybe the N360 is different, but with mine I had no issue finding a 3rd party cog that fit on, but it lacked the slots that would have made it work with the freewheel removal tool. Result was that I was never able to remove it. Although I've heard people mention other ways of removing cogs.


----------



## Canoe (May 10, 2011)

sbloom said:


> ... maybe i can a fifteen and not have to change out the Schlumpf chain wheel...Does anybody know the brand cog that fits the Nuvinci?


Search mtbr for who has what cog on the n360. 
But.
I'd suggest you look for people reporting what combinations result in the character of pedaling for the types of ground you'll be on. As in, single track, city trails, touring, with a load, etc..
Assuming you're not just trying to make it run for the lowest cost, then change things out to meet your specific needs later as you determine them.


----------



## sbloom (Jun 20, 2012)

[No message]


----------



## TroyS600 (Mar 29, 2007)

Why is there a minimum drive ratio? Is it to prevent the rider from applying too much torque to the hub? If so, it seems odd that they recommend the hub for use with electric assist.

I'd like to know how small of a cog can fit because i'm interested in running a nuvinci in a 20" wheel so i'll want a small cog even with a big ring up front.


----------



## Canoe (May 10, 2011)

Canoe said:


> NuVinci says 16t to 22t


As to the minimum drive ratio, I've been told there are two reasons.

One: given that the previous design was way way overbuilt, resulting in an unnecessary weight penalty, the reduced weight N360 is not as strong as the overbuilt predecessor, with some assuming this means it is not strong enough.

Two: apparently the real reason, and the reason the reduced weight/strength doesn't matter, is that under the minimum drive ratio you can get increasing resistance. Something to do with the internal fluid & surfaces, both wearing out the drive (hence the warranty restriction) and, as reported by many users who tried anyway, making for a lot of pedaling resistance when you put it under higher loads.

Rather than _think_ you'll want a small cog, have you calculated the gear inches you want and what sizes are required to get it? Save yourself time & money knowing what you want from the start.


----------



## TroyS600 (Mar 29, 2007)

Interesting, good to know about the potential downfalls of a lot of torque on the hub.

Yeah, according to my calculations a 16 cog, 46 ring will get me about 29 gear inches on the easy end, and 103 on the fast end. That should be fine but i'm right at the 16t limit so i'm curious if i can go smaller. It can be tricky to go bigger on the front ring with the setup i'm considering.

The 20" wheels would really help the hub to cope with the extra torque of the electric assist, so that's good. The drive ratio would be 2.88. That being nearly double the recommended means i should be able to put double the normal torque at the crank without the problems you mentioned.


----------



## tundratrader (Mar 5, 2010)

I am thinking of getting the origin 8 fatbike. I have heard the standard gearing is not amazing for hills. A friend has one on a Karate monkey and said hills suck. I am wondering if I can drop to a smaller chain ring and get around this issue? I looked at the charts but can't figure it out. My current pugsley is a 1x7 and is a ***** going up big hills right now with a 36t chain ring. If I can make this work for lower gearing that would be awesome. Any help and advice is much appreciated.


----------



## Canoe (May 10, 2011)

tundratrader said:


> ...My current pugsley is a 1x7 and is a ***** going up big hills right now with a 36t chain ring. If I can make this work for lower gearing that would be awesome. ...


Give me the tire diameter and the tooth count of your 7 speed (minimum the low and the high), then the diameter of tire you'd use on the Origin 8. I'll do some math.

The Origin 8 Crawler comes with the n360 driven by an 18T cog. A review says the chainring is 32T. Somewhere I saw someone claim the stock Origin-8 Devist8er 26×4 tires are slightly shorter than Larrys (29.173"), so using Black Floyd's 29.055" the Crawler comes out at 25.8 through 93.0 Gear Inches. I see from a post of yours that your pug has Endos (28.976"), so get me your 7 speed teeth count and I'll give you the gear inches so you can compare.

BUT, and it is a big but, *we may have the cause of* _"I have heard the standard gearing is not amazing for hills"_. 32T driving 18T makes for a drive ratio that is 1.78 :nono:, under the 1.8 minimum recommended. TOAT with 32 driving 18 for 1.78 reported 'feels difficulty with CVT resistance climbing'. 28 driving 18T was 'noticeably more CVT resistance'. The Crawler would need 36T driving 20T to get the minimum 1.80, for 26.1 through 94.1 gear inches.

For initial comparison, a 36T driving a 7 speed 13-34T with an Endomorph would have 30.7 to 80.2 gear inches.


----------



## tundratrader (Mar 5, 2010)

So my pugsley has a 30t big 12t little in back 36 t chain ring. 26x4.0 tires. The origin 8 will have same size tires.


----------



## Canoe (May 10, 2011)

O.K. then.

Your pug with 36T driving 12-30T on Endomorphs yields 34.8 through 86.9 Gear Inches. That's not a pug, that's a pig. Some would call that department store cruiser bike range. (a 32T front yields 30.9-77.3G.I.; a 28T front yields 27.0-67.6G.I.)
The stock Crawler (if that is a 32T chainring to 18T cog then n360) on 
their Devist8er tires yields 25.8 through 93.0 Gear Inches
Endomorphs, yields 26.1 through 93.9 Gear Inches.


So the Crawler will be easier than your pug, except for the CVT resistance of 1.78 as noted above. (read post #15 item _Two_ above to see why you'd care) Don't know how bad it will be, but TOAT noticed it. A 36T driving 20T cog to get the 1.8 ratio will minimize it. 
Or a 34T driving the 18T so you're only changing the front, but that's 1.89 ratio so you're giving up some advantage and end up with 27.4 through 98.5 Gear Inches.

So the stock Crawler has better gear inches than your pug, but its drive ratio means you'll will pay some penalty in CVT resistance under load. You can get an even better hill climbing ratio by using a smaller chainring, but you'll be paying an increasing CVT resistance penalty, reducing that advantage while apparently wearing out your CVT.

If you're doing a lot of hills, or really pushing on the hills, do consider getting the drive ratio back to 1.80 or better; the gear inches are still way better than your pug/pig. But if you're really doing a lot of hills, perhaps an n360 in a Fat Bike isn't for you. Or, remember that the roll resistance of 27tpi, 60tpi or 120tpi tires makes a difference in the work you'll do too.


----------



## tundratrader (Mar 5, 2010)

Yeah Homer, Alaska is very hilly. This pug was a box of parts bike. I think putting a nine speed cassette in the back and a smaller chain ring will help out quite a bit. I am a big dude as well so rolling resistance of the fatbike tires is a non issue for me. I just need to be able to get up hills. I might sell this and get a mukluk if that origin 8 isn't going to work out. It also has a weight limit. That you usually don't see on bikes. I wonder if that is because of the cvt hub.
Thanks for help. Any ideas you have on gear combos would be great. I want to keep a single chain ring up front on this bike.


----------



## Canoe (May 10, 2011)

tundratrader said:


> Yeah Homer, Alaska is very hilly.... Any ideas you have on gear combos would be great. I want to keep a single chain ring up front on this bike.


A 32T driving a 10 speed 11x36T has 26.7-87.3 G.I..
Drive it with a 28T, and that's 23.3-76.4.
A 28T driving an 11 speed 11x42 has 20.0-84.0 G.I..

I can do the math, but my experience is limited. I'd suggest you get over to Fat Bikes and see what's used.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

*Crawler, lowered gearing and hills*



tundratrader said:


> I am thinking of getting the origin 8 fatbike. I have heard the standard gearing is not amazing for hills. A friend has one on a Karate monkey and said hills suck. I am wondering if I can drop to a smaller chain ring and get around this issue? I looked at the charts but can't figure it out. My current pugsley is a 1x7 and is a ***** going up big hills right now with a 36t chain ring. If I can make this work for lower gearing that would be awesome. Any help and advice is much appreciated.


I had a Crawler, geared it down towards 1.6, below specs, out of warranty range. Even geared down this far (sorry I don't remember the original chainring/cog sizes), hills were a ***** and I perceived, but couldn't necessarily quantify, and inherent inefficiency. Reports seem to indicate that its very efficient in the middle of "gearing" range, and less so at the extremes, either high or low. Given fatbiking on hills in snow, I spent a lot of time in the lowest range possible. Then, at this lowered overall gearing, when I could get on hard flat ground, the high end wasn't high enough and I would spin out when I had more to give. I rode it a bunch, had a ton of fun on it, and really enjoyed the novelty of the Nuvinci around town and in commuter mode - for which I think the NuVinci is ideal. I sold the bike to someone who wanted it for exactly this purpose alone. I don't think it is feasible to make the NuVinci setup trail/hill climb worthy. If I could have a limitless stable of rides, the Crawler w/NuVinci would be my winter, rack and fendered, commuter/townie.


----------

