djb

I was wondering too and checked Gevenalle, and they have an Alfine 8 version on a set of their system, I vaguely recalled and thought maybe it was for rohlof also.

Tourist in MSN

Above in post number 3 I stated:

My derailleur touring bikes are 3X8 systems. I avoid the two most cross chained gears on each chainring, thus I only use 18 of the 24 possible gears. And the crankset is half step plus granny with 46/42/24 chainrings. While I certainly assume that nobody else is going to want half step, that has been out of favor since the 70s or 80s, it does give me 18 gears on 1990s technology that has better touring gearing than any of the 1X systems out there. If any of you want to replicate those gears on a chart, the sprockets are 11/12/14/16/18/21/26/32.

But I will do that for you here, the cross chained gears I do not use are not shown. These charts are based on a 40mm wide 26 inch tire.




That gives me a lot of closely spaced gears up in the higher range where I spend 80 to 90 percent of my time on fairly flat ground. And a small number of much lower gears for the steeper hills.

A lot of people that are bike touring are just like you and maybe a 1X system is best for you.

I certainly understand the desire for a single sequential shifter. One of my bikes has a Rohloff hub, one shifter with 14 gears, as plotted below. If you are going up and down a roller coaster of closely spaced hills, a single sequential shifter is really nice. In those conditions when I am shifting my triple on a derailleur bike, I can really wish that I had my Rohloff bike on that ride instead.

This chart is my Rohloff gearing with a 36T chainring, 16T sprocket and 57mm wide 26 inch wheel. The gearing shown is what I use for touring, but when riding that bike around home where the bike is not loaded down with camping gear, I use a different chainring to make the entire gear range higher. I find the range plotted as the best for a heavily loaded bike going up the steeper hills but I lack the higher gears for the shallow downhills where I spin out.




Yeah, a 1X system is a lot cheaper than a Rohloff, but there are not many ways to get gearing with a sequential shifter that covers such a wide range.

***

I do not see a lot of interest here on this board in the new 13 speed system from Campy.
https://www.campagnolo.com/us/en/ekar/1x13

The 9 to 42 cassette gets you up to the 467 percent range and one more gear than the 12 speed systems. It makes my a bit curious why nobody is looking at the Campy system.

Or, perhaps it is the price that keeps interest at bay?
https://road.cc/content/review/campa...roupset-278179

Tourist in MSN

Rohloff has the indexing in the hub, other gearing like derailleurs have the indexing in the shifter. (I am unsure, but I think Pinion also is like the Rohloff, indexing not in the shifter.)

So, the Rohloff has two cables, pull on one to upshift, pull on the other to down shift. When you are not shifting, both cables are slack.

There is an aftermarket gizmo called a Rohbox that allows you to use brifters that have had the indexing gutted out of the levers work to shift a Rohloff. In that case, one brifter upshifts and the other brifter downshifts. Two brifters needed, as there are two cables.

I am sure you could use the Gevenalle for shifting with the Rohbox. If I was going to try it, I would stick a set of vintage downtube friction shifters on the brake levers, but it would have to have no friction on the lever position so you would have to locktite the bolts into it so the bolts do not come lose and have the levers fall off.

I did not bother with links here as I assume there is no interest, if there is, that is what google is there for.

base2 

I mentioned & included links to the Gebla/Rohbox, Gevenalle, & other things mentioned in a previous post on this thread.

Like you when building up my Rolhoff bike I explored every option I could think of. SRAM shifters work the best because of the ability for the mechanic to physically remove the ratchet pawl inside the shifter. I suppose any shifter could be used if you could remove the ratchet pawl or otherwise disable the index function, but Shimano & other brands tend to be designed as a self-contained cartridge assembly that is difficult for a general home or shop mechanic to disassemble & modify, let alone get back together again with missing parts.

The other issue with down tube, Gevenalle, etc...with the Rohbox/Gebla is the reset of the shifter lever. The lever itself needs to be reset back to position 0 from position 1 after a shift. It is the levers release after actuation & return spring rate in the Rohbox that prevents a stuck position 1 lever and a dangling zero tension shift cable. The entire system outside of the shift box is: normal 0, momentary 1...if that makes sense

The Gebla/Rohbox shifts well, if a little heavy in the shifting action. You really have to want a shift in comparison to the super light action luxury that is modern derailleur systems. But it is reliable enough, it seems & allows drop bars & I love it.

Here is the Rolhoff/Gebla/Sram touring bike I had built:
20200723_141115 by Richard Mozzarella, on Flickr

Here is the "1"x11 Schlumf/Gevenalle 700% range bike from post number 10 the OP probably thinks he wants.
20201031_133157 by Richard Mozzarella, on Flickr

Tourist in MSN

I tried multiple locations for the Rohloff shifter, but settled on the Hubbub adapter which puts the stock Rohloff shifter on the right side bar end. That allows me to shift while I have both hands on the bars out where I have leverage for steering if I am negotiating difficult terrain on a slow uphill.

My Rohloff is on my expedition bike, I want that to have very simple mechanicals, thus using the stock twist grip shifter.

elcruxio

doesn't take much of a hill to spin out a 44-11 even with 4 panniers. Almost all european countries have some major hills where spinning out a 44-11 is more than possible. Of course spin out rpm is individual but you get my point.

I started out with a compact double, went to a triple, toured thousands and again thousands of km's with that, tried a 1x11 for a while and decided I hated it, went to a mtb double and am now building a new disc trucker which will have a triple.

I relly don't like the 1x for road or touring. Works great for mtb where cadence isn't a word that's used. But for road even with a 11-42 11-speed cassette I'm constantly in the wrong gear. I much prefer a 11-34 and a 22-34-44.



I wouldn't generalize so heavily. Bicycle tourists are a diverse bunch. I'd wager most are interested in more than river routes (though river routes are pretty neat)

ciquta

​​​​​are you sure our setups are so different in terms of range and spacing??

here's the comparison @ 80rpm:



- out of 24 gears you can use only 18 of which 5 are basically overlapped, that leaves you with only 13 real different options

- all the "cruise" cogs (15 to 30 km/h) have the very same spacing (12-14-16-18-21...)

- we both have only two climbing cogs under 2.3 inches; mine are just better spaced, that's the only reason why I get a bit less range on the lower end, and i wouldn't consider it a disadvantage

- the only little advantage in terms of spacing and range is above 30km/h, where I spend probably less than 1% and mostly downhill not pedalling

in exchange of that a 1x setup is lighter, easier, faster, more realiable, more flexible (just slap a different ring and you get a whole different setup)


it's a no brainer to me

elcruxio

a little lighter sure.

easier? Depends how you define it but sure, I'll give you that.

faster? Most definitely not. Derailleur system efficiency goes out the window once you start cross chaining and you do that a lot with a 1x system. More chainrings up front allows for a straighter chain line and better efficiency thus faster. Also a triple big ring allows for higher absolute speed so there's that.

more reliable? Depends on the system but likely not. 1x wears components faster than 2x or 3x so any advantage 1x might have with only one chainring wearing is nullified by just that one chainring wearing. Less shifting components up front, but if one of those breaks it means you end up with 1x for a while.

the more flexible approach could work if you could swap chainrings tool free on the fly. But you can't so the process of changing chainrings is the same on a triple as it is on a 1x. Also the triple itself grants its own flexibility since you don't actually have to swap chainrings.

as to the higher than 30km/h thing. It doesn't happen often so less than 1% of touring time, but sometimes you get an awesome tailwind that's a bummer to miss. 40km/h for what feels like hours. In sweden I was constantly running out of high gears so that convinced me to go back to multi chainring systems

Germany_chris

Tout Terrain still makes their Rohloff drop bar shifter/brake lever they’re shaped just like modern STI’s if that’s your thing

Tourist in MSN

Looks like a similar device to the Rohbox. I was unaware of it. Thanks for posting, new information is always good.

Tourist in MSN

If you prefer the smaller range, higher low gear, lower high gear, and wider spacing between the gears that you spend most of your time on, then it is a no brainer for you. You should stick with it.

dwmckee

The 9 speed group is excellent and probably ideal for touring due to it's robustness, smaller spacing between gears and compatibility of road and MTB components. A 1x9 choice is not so good due to the bigger jumps between gears and the limited range between low and high. The need for finer steps is more apparent when you are touring on widely varying grades and are carrying an extra 40 pounds of stuff. It is a frustrating feeling when the gear you want to be pedaling is repeatedly is between two other gears and you just cannot find it after jumping back and forth.

Almost every stock touring bike still has 2 or 3 chainrings for a reason. The 1x touring bikes you do see are 1x10, 11, 12 and are quite a bit less popular.

ciquta

not really, my point is there's no smaller range with 1x and no wider spacing, esp the one where you spend the most time on.

see the comparison with a 10-46 (80€) cassette:


Up to 35 km/h it's rougly the same setup in terms of range and spacing.

Yes, with 3x you can spin up to 40km/h at the same cadence, whereas 1x gives you different edges.
But THAT falls in the field of personal preferences.

The point is: a 1x11 can take you wherever your 3x can, with no more fatigue, stress or time.

djb

except we aren't discussing an 11 speed , it's about a 9 speed 11- 42.

but yes, 11 speed cassettes are very cool, I'm a total supporter of more gears BUT with any 1x you're talking about crosschaining , so in real life you're talking slightly less efficient and more wear on the cassette and the only chainring.
I know most people don't think of how long stuff lasts, or the cost, until the bike store tells them at a "tuneup" that they need a new chain and cassette-- and 1x systems must go through stuff faster due to crosschaining.

new technology is great, but there are clear reasons why the stuff we are defending still have numerous real world advantages , one of which is cost.

ciquta

By faster I meant faster gear switch.
A 1x lets you always drop 1 to 5 gears with a single tap, whereas with 3x you may need to switch multiple times (FD + RD) and it takes longer, which is annoying esp uphill.
Not to mention if you are no expert when you switch chainring you may land on the wrong gear and you have to adjust before getting to the right one.

But yes you are right: chainline efficency is better with a 3x, that's the only real advantage IMO.


I've read somewhere the better chain engagement of the NW system plus the lack of front shifting results in a much less stress for the chianring teeth.
Just in case, you can always slap a 10€ steel chainring which will last forever.

At the end of the day you have one less shifter, cable, clap and mech with potential fail or adjustment to take care of.
Not a huge adavantage, but I'd still call this more reliable.


True, you can't do on the fly, but before you start a tour you know if you are going to cross the Appalachians loaded with camping stuff or going down the Danube bike path sleeping in hotels
I find nice the chance of gettting a whole different setup with little money and time.

elcruxio

shifting is easier sure. That's why it's such a big thing in the mtb world. But typically when touring or road riding in general you have time to plan your shifts, a luxury not afforded on mtb trails.

But even then shifting the front and back simultaneously gets you pretty quick shifts.


the lifetime wear isn't actually due to chainring wear but chain wear. As the chain stretches it'll grind away the chainring and cassette making them incompatible with new chains. You can use a chainring for a long time if you swap chains regularly before they stretch too much.


What if you go along the danube and then go over the alps? I don't usually know where I end up before I start a tour. I mean sure, I'll have a direction like "west" and that usually means I'll know the country I'll go to but I haven't planned per se.

also sometimes plans change. You might be thinking that you'll be doing a nice relaxing lake circumnavigation but actually end up climbing a nickel mine mountain to get past said lake since it wasn't rideable with a bike. Or you think Belgium is nice and flat since it's next to the netherlands but then you're reminded that ardennes forest is actually the ardennes mountain range.

djb

Oi ! Yes, you, the Irish guy!
haven't heard hide nor hare from you during all our endless blabbering on about this and that

so , what are yer thoughts mate?
and never heard back from you about how much this system costs, and if a 10 spd version is available and at what cost, and why you want to stick with 9 spd? (Im kinda assuming chainline and maybe how the frame you want to use is limited to a 9 spd 1x for chain angle rubbing the frame or something??)

oh, happy brexiting and teh whole mess of details of shipping and all that fun.

Comfort is King

I like having the wear spread out over three chainrings. I'm a bigger dude with a heavy load--because there's a tight correlation between weight and comfort--so maybe others don't undergo the kind of wear I do. As a gauge I can't go more that ten to twelve weeks of touring without getting a new chain and cassette. The extra weight grinds them right up. I'll never forget the astonished look the mechanic had when he said I needed a new middle chainring. He couldn't believe I'd chomped through it. No other heavy tourers bring their bike there, not at that time, so it was almost unbelievable to him. I think about that when I climb sometimes, and how I'm glad I'm not in my middle chainring, which most of the time, I am.

Igor_M

Your suggestion got me intrigued so I fiddled a bit with it and a 38-24 crankset with a 10s or 11s, 12-34 cassette is something I would be keen on trying.
40-26 tho, haven't found any, did you have any particular manufacturer/model in mind or would it have to be bodged together (not that I mind)?

ciquta

no I have no idea, I don't bother anymore with 2x

but I'd rather stay with 38/24 and go with a different cassette equipped with 11t cog
don't discount the small cog, it makes a big difference in range

Igor_M

I don't think range should be a target in and by itself.
38-11 is basically equivalent to the 52-15 I have as top gear on my road training bike which takes me safely into the low 40s at proper cadence, thus not something I would really need/benefit from on a dedicated touring bike.

Tourist in MSN

If you are looking for a double with 38/24 or 40/26 chainrings, you may need to get a triple and then put a bash guard/chainguard in the outer position.

Spa in the UK is not exporting to Europe at this time, but they may in the future, that may be an option.
https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m8b0s109...rain/Chainsets

I converted a chainring to a bash guard by cutting off the teeth and filing off all the cut marks.

Happy Feet

sloppy12

I am running a similar on winter beater. Its the microshift acolyte 1x8 32/12-46(mine is a 26"x2.3" tire though). I think this set up will highly depend on what you are gonna ride. Honestly If I was building this bike again I would get the 12-42 the 32/46 combo has pretty limited use(I cant go up on ring gear, maybe a 34t max If I could I would bump up to 36 or 40)

If you are gonna be mostly offroad like real offroad I think it will be a ok setup if the 700C is on the bigger size. if you are gonna be 50/50 IMO its gonna be kinda slow on the roads or hero gravel. With that said I ride mine all over the place from trail to trail I get there its fine. I bomb around on the trails and then go ride to another one. I ride it to work on pretty chunky gravel and its great for that. I cant imagine wanting this set up a bike with 700C touring type tires maybe 700x50 or 29"+ tires.

homelessjoe

Im older now and not as strong as I use to be but I UPGRADED one of my old steel touring bikes to 1X9 trying to join the 21 century.......I would come down a hill all loaded up in high gear then when I started to climb the next hill and needed to get in low low gear .....I had to hit the shifter nine times in rapid succession.........often my bike would stop and I would fall off before I could shift that many times.......I must just be use to 50 years of reaching down to my down tube shifters and pushing my friction shifter down into my granny gear.........but I think it might be something to consider when choosing that setup for touring in hilly or mountainous terrain....... next youll have to shift nine times to get back into high gear........bring an extra cable and butt cream for your shift finger