Author Topic: Bike recommendation - touring  (Read 1961 times)

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2020, 07:27:46 am »
Given your ( well founded) concern about flights, I’d personally spend buy a good ( Bike Box Alan or similar) Hard shell bike flight case, and save a bit if necessary on the bike. If yoI’ve ever seen baggage handlers loading bikes it would convince you!

The issue is then, what to do with the bike box? You can probably come up with a solution if you are doing a circular ride and going in and out of the same airport, but not if you want to do a linear ride. The CTC bag you can carry with you, and it appears to engender more care in the handlers, who can see it is a bike and will normally carry it as such.

...I fitted a SA 5s hub

Which, in a few words, is why your IGH experience was different to mine, especially as I had a versa shifter. And no, I didn't need the 8 gears, not really.


zigzag

  • unfuckwithable
Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2020, 12:53:47 pm »
for frameset i'd go for a gravel type aluminium, gears - deffo a 1x setup (e.g., ekar?:)), tyres something like slick 700x32-35 or 650bx47, perhaps aerobars.

i believe it is possible to make a durable, efficient and light internal gear hub, but no one has made it yet (i'd like one myself).

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2020, 01:41:22 pm »
My recent build is focussed on touring and endurance. Some specs may be relevant to you.
The wants were:-
Lower bottom bracket
silent (onyx) hub
Hard wearing quality components.
Substantial tubing for load carrying/heavier touring.
Low gearing.
Full pannier and mud guard braze on options.
Slightly more relaxed geometry than previous build.
Aerobars.
Dynamo wheel paired to front and rear lights.
Clearance for wide tires. (its currently set up with 650b/47mm)

Its a little slower, but incredibly comfortable. I do have to watch for pedal strike if cornering enthusiastically with the lower BB and 'Ill likely have to be careful on really rocky paths for the same reason.
I don't think I'd change anything on the build but its early days. Possibly went a little too low with the gearing.
hope that helps.

often lost.

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2020, 07:14:45 pm »
Given your ( well founded) concern about flights, I’d personally spend buy a good ( Bike Box Alan or similar) Hard shell bike flight case, and save a bit if necessary on the bike. If yoI’ve ever seen baggage handlers loading bikes it would convince you!

That's a good point - yes I have watched as my bike, which was carefully put in the hold last and on the top, came out first and was put flat on the baggage truck followed by every other bag in the hold thrown on top. Miraculously it has survived every trip with only minor damage.

The reason for a soft-shell bag (padded, not as minimalist as Ham suggests) is that it can be folded and tied over the rack. It's a bit unwieldy but is ok to cycle the 20-30 km to the nearest town. On my very first trip I landed at a tiny airport having researched that they had left luggage. When I got there left luggage was out of order. The nearest Motel (10 km) was happy to store it if I booked a night stay on my return.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2020, 07:18:15 pm »
BTW the simplest IGH is a three speed gear; these usually have middle gear as direct drive, so traditionally the idea is that you set gear 2 to 'normal', i.e. the gear that you might use as a singlespeed, eg about 66".   This gives you a low gear for climbing and a high gear for easier conditions (downhill, tail wind).

However for touring there is much to be said for choosing a larger rear sprocket and setting gear 3 to the 'normal' gear ratio. This gives two lower gears for climbing, which many people find a more useful arrangement.

cheers

That sounds like good advice, though for that arrangement I might choose a slightly higher (70-72") for 'normal'. What are the losses like for gear 3 compared to direct drive?

Now have to decide between S3X or freewheel. It's starting to look like I won't be getting a new bike after all...
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #30 on: September 29, 2020, 08:26:34 pm »
S3X is not an especially good hub IMHO.  It has a lot of lash (so it isn't a very good fixed gear) and the internal it is based on the single toggle  (W) series of 5s hubs; these hubs are very  sensitive to adjustment variations and internal faults are more common than they should be.  There is a small amount of parasitic drag with this hub even in the direct drive gear.   SA discontinued both the single toggle (W) 5s hubs  and the S3X several years ago. For now, spares are available, but they won't be for ever.

On the plus side the 'high' ratio in the S3X is direct drive, which is the way you might choose to have it.

FWIW I'd choose either a current S-RF3 (NIG) three speed gear, or a later(current) aluminium shell (eg from S-RF3) with an earlier (pre NIG) AW internal installed inside it.  A pre-NIG internal can be fitted with a new 'all solid' axle which should be stronger than the old sort with a riveted sun pinion. There is a whole raft of small changes which can be made to these hubs which make them likely to last longer without giving trouble, many using standard SA parts which are readily available.

However I would not choose the rotary shifting RS-RF3 hub; not because it is weak internally (although it might be for all I know) but because the shift mechanism takes up about 14mm on the RHS of the axle which means that the wheel goes from 'barely dished' to 'as dished as a derailleur wheel', thus negating one of the basic advantages of an IGH. It won't even fit into narrow-spaced frames at all.

One of the reasons for selecting the pre NIG 3s internal is that the driver is long enough to accommodate two sprockets.  One option for setting the hub up is to have a 'low range' (which uses the larger sprocket) which you can select for 'climbing days'. One method of doing this is to carry a few spare links of chain and a another master link, so that the chain can be lengthened and the larger of the two sprockets used.  This works most easily if the difference in the sprocket sizes is a multiple of four; this way the chain needs to be lengthened by an even number of links, often without moving the rear wheel.  Other teeth differences are also possible if you use a half-link.

For example without a half link

4 teeth difference, two extra chain links
8 teeth difference, four extra chain links
12 teeth difference, six extra chain links

With a half link

two teeth difference, one extra chain link
six teeth difference, three extra chain links
ten teeth difference, five extra chain links

All this works more easily if you can tolerate a somewhat slack chain, which is something of a culture shock, coming from a fixed gear.

cheers

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #31 on: September 29, 2020, 09:27:47 pm »
S3X is not an especially good hub IMHO.  It has a lot of lash (so it isn't a very good fixed gear) and the internal it is based on the single toggle  (W) series of 5s hubs; these hubs are very  sensitive to adjustment variations and internal faults are more common than they should be.  There is a small amount of parasitic drag with this hub even in the direct drive gear.   SA discontinued both the single toggle (W) 5s hubs  and the S3X several years ago. For now, spares are available, but they won't be for ever.

On the plus side the 'high' ratio in the S3X is direct drive, which is the way you might choose to have it.

FWIW I'd choose either a current S-RF3 (NIG) three speed gear, or a later(current) aluminium shell (eg from S-RF3) with an earlier (pre NIG) AW internal installed inside it.  A pre-NIG internal can be fitted with a new 'all solid' axle which should be stronger than the old sort with a riveted sun pinion. There is a whole raft of small changes which can be made to these hubs which make them likely to last longer without giving trouble, many using standard SA parts which are readily available.

However I would not choose the rotary shifting RS-RF3 hub; not because it is weak internally (although it might be for all I know) but because the shift mechanism takes up about 14mm on the RHS of the axle which means that the wheel goes from 'barely dished' to 'as dished as a derailleur wheel', thus negating one of the basic advantages of an IGH. It won't even fit into narrow-spaced frames at all.

One of the reasons for selecting the pre NIG 3s internal is that the driver is long enough to accommodate two sprockets.  One option for setting the hub up is to have a 'low range' (which uses the larger sprocket) which you can select for 'climbing days'. One method of doing this is to carry a few spare links of chain and a another master link, so that the chain can be lengthened and the larger of the two sprockets used.  This works most easily if the difference in the sprocket sizes is a multiple of four; this way the chain needs to be lengthened by an even number of links, often without moving the rear wheel.  Other teeth differences are also possible if you use a half-link.

For example without a half link

4 teeth difference, two extra chain links
8 teeth difference, four extra chain links
12 teeth difference, six extra chain links

With a half link

two teeth difference, one extra chain link
six teeth difference, three extra chain links
ten teeth difference, five extra chain links

All this works more easily if you can tolerate a somewhat slack chain, which is something of a culture shock, coming from a fixed gear.

cheers

I can vouch for the SFR 5W being very finicky with cable adjustment. The only bike I can't use without taking my reading glasses to see the yellow spot if I need to repair a puncture. I haven't yet worked out why the adjustment changes all the time, unscrewing the shifting chain should leave the locknut in the same spot so it will screw back the same - but it doesn't! I wouldn't want something on those lines for touring (although I've got it now!)

re twin sprockets. On a 2X3 system  (with a mech) the developments seem to be evenly spaced with no duplicates if there is a gap of 3 teeth between the sprockets (the Sachs was 18/22). I have spent some happy hours with a slide rule trying to get better but never succeeded.
With Brucey's system the limitation becomes what is available in terms of sprockets. The biggest I think on an AW is 24t, the smallest is 13t, apparently for Bromptons and the like (I thought it was 14t). (Actually, browsing the SJS selection I notice a 30t Alfine sprocket that possibly could be made to fit with a bit of grinding). I'm not sure that I wouldn't go for fitting a second chainring and keeping the sprockets a bit closer in size. Chain tensioners (in case anyone is thinking) don't IMHE appear to handle a 4t difference. Decent length fork ends do rather better!

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #32 on: September 29, 2020, 09:52:53 pm »
I don't just have one system; I have several, of which that is just one.

You can if necessary modify any shimano UG or HG sprocket to fit the SA spline; the major diameter is the same; it is simply a question of removing six of the protrusions from the sprocket and modifying the remaining three.

Suitable sprocket sizes for half-stepping rely on percentage differences, not fixed intervals of teeth; they only work is the sprocket you start with is the correct size.

If you want to calculate the correct interval first you need to know the correct interval you are trying to half-step. So in the case of a SA AW hub it is 1.333.  If you take the square root of 1.333  (which is about 1.155) that is the interval required between sprockets for a half step.

If you multiply integer values (representing real sprocket sizes that you might want to use) by the appropriate value (in this case 1.155) then you will come to one that is close (or at least closer ) to another integer value, and that is about as good as you will manage to do. If you know your maths then you will know that 0.155 is quite close to 1/6 so sprockets which are divisible by 6 are likely to provide a good solution.

In practice you can very quickly try a lot of this stuff out using a gear calculator with a good graphical interface, for example I like the ritzelrechner one. What might take hours any other way can be done in a few minutes, because you can 'drag' the sprocket sizes etc

http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=SAAW&KB=46&RZ=18&UF=2170&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=MPH&DV=gearInches&GR2=SAAW&KB2=46&RZ2=28,24&UF2=2170

shows a 'standard' AW setup, compared with a 'high normal' + half step arrangement using the same hub, giving six evenly spaced ratios between 33" and 69"

This

http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=SAAW&KB=46&RZ=24&UF=2170&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=MPH&DV=gearInches&GR2=SAAW&KB2=46&RZ2=28,18&UF2=2170

compares a 'high normal' 3s setup with a 1-1/2 step 2x3s setup.

cheers

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2020, 04:00:41 pm »
I don't just have one system; I have several, of which that is just one.

You can if necessary modify any shimano UG or HG sprocket to fit the SA spline; the major diameter is the same; it is simply a question of removing six of the protrusions from the sprocket and modifying the remaining three.

Suitable sprocket sizes for half-stepping rely on percentage differences, not fixed intervals of teeth; they only work is the sprocket you start with is the correct size.

If you want to calculate the correct interval first you need to know the correct interval you are trying to half-step. So in the case of a SA AW hub it is 1.333.  If you take the square root of 1.333  (which is about 1.155) that is the interval required between sprockets for a half step.

If you multiply integer values (representing real sprocket sizes that you might want to use) by the appropriate value (in this case 1.155) then you will come to one that is close (or at least closer ) to another integer value, and that is about as good as you will manage to do. If you know your maths then you will know that 0.155 is quite close to 1/6 so sprockets which are divisible by 6 are likely to provide a good solution.

In practice you can very quickly try a lot of this stuff out using a gear calculator with a good graphical interface, for example I like the ritzelrechner one. What might take hours any other way can be done in a few minutes, because you can 'drag' the sprocket sizes etc

http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=SAAW&KB=46&RZ=18&UF=2170&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=MPH&DV=gearInches&GR2=SAAW&KB2=46&RZ2=28,24&UF2=2170

shows a 'standard' AW setup, compared with a 'high normal' + half step arrangement using the same hub, giving six evenly spaced ratios between 33" and 69"

This

http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=SAAW&KB=46&RZ=24&UF=2170&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=MPH&DV=gearInches&GR2=SAAW&KB2=46&RZ2=28,18&UF2=2170

compares a 'high normal' 3s setup with a 1-1/2 step 2x3s setup.

cheers

I must apologise because 3X2 uses a derailleur and so is off topic for this thread. Sorry everyone!

That said, I would not consider personally modifying a cassette sprocket for a single cog operation. I did once and it was a complete disaster, fortunately before it got mission critical (this was on a ss freehub conversion, no filing required). The teeth aren't deep enough (or tall enough), the chain comes off when you don't need it to. Same set-up with a proper ss cog was totally reliable. Chain wear? Anyway not a plan I would return to. (Why does it work when you single-speed a bike with a mech problem?)

I don't understand the maths above but 18/21 and 21/24 give the same percentage intervals and 19/22 is even closer to identical intervals.

Of course this is irrelevant if the object is to have 2 independant 3s systems. One chooses the one cog for the anticipated low range and the other for the anticipated cruising range, no interaction needed. As I said, sorry everyone!

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2020, 04:53:37 pm »
when I've modified a HG sprocket for use on a SA hub gear it has worked perfectly, where with a SS conversion it is less likely to. The difference is that

a) I'm running 1/8" chain (with cambered inner side plates) on the SA hub and
b) I'd only bother with modifying large size sprockets for a low gear second sprocket on a 2x3 or 2x5 hybrid gearing system. The smaller sprockets (which wouldn't work well if they were modified  HG sprockets) are so cheap in SA form there is no point in messing about. The larger ones work without trouble.

In fact the next time you do a SS conversion on a freehub, you might like to consider using a modified SA sprocket on the (steel) freehub body.

Remember I said 'more than one system'?  If you want more gears, simply, without a derailleur, or any real chain faff, you can use what I call a 'Magic Alpine Double' setup. In this you have two chainrings and two sprockets, set such that two combinations  both use exactly the same chain length.  For example I have used 46T, 36T chainrings with 19T, 30T sprockets. These are used in 36/30  and 46/19 combinations only.   With a SA 5s hub this gives gear ranges of 21"-49" and 43" - 99"  respectively.   With the right chain fitted you can run (without unintended derailments) with enough slack in the chain such that it can be manually derailed to 36/19 temporarily and thence to the chosen combination.

The maths is horrible but it works out for typical combinations (for sensible gears on typical wheel sizes) that if the chainrings differ in size by 'n' (where 'n' is between about 8 and 12) then the sprockets often can differ by 'n + 1'.  So in the example above the chainrings differ by 10T and the sprockets by 11T.   You can of course check the accuracy of any such guesstimates quite easily.

I have not checked the chain lengths exactly but with an AW hub a suggested hilly touring setup might be to use the 'Magic Alpine Double' setup with 36, 26T chainrings and 19, 30T  sprockets. This gives gears 17-31" in the low range (26/30) and 38-69" in the high range (36/19).

FWIW my plan is to implement the Magic Alpine Double using derailleurs, but these can be 'fork' type derailleurs, i.e. they need not have any chain tensioning ability, so no pulleys. Provided the chain is OK transitioning via the small-small combination (e.g. without dragging on the ground) then this should work OK.

cheers

zigzag

  • unfuckwithable
Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2020, 05:26:31 pm »
FWIW I'd choose either a current S-RF3 (NIG) three speed gear, or a later(current) aluminium shell (eg from S-RF3) with an earlier (pre NIG) AW internal installed inside it.  A pre-NIG internal can be fitted with a new 'all solid' axle which should be stronger than the old sort with a riveted sun pinion. There is a whole raft of small changes which can be made to these hubs which make them likely to last longer without giving trouble, many using standard SA parts which are readily available.

a bit off-topic, but. i've got a newish srf3 hub in my spares box and wonder if i can make it usable. the reason it is in spares box is that it bloody rattles. it functions properly, gears adjusted fine, shifts fine, doesn't skip. the only major annoyance is the rattling noise (like a few screws bouncing around in an empty hub shell). i wonder if there are any hacks to make it quiet(er). there is some ticking noise, which is tolerable and i can live with it. just want too find out if rattling can be eliminated without compromising hub's functionality.

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2020, 06:54:45 pm »
rattling can commonly  be caused either by the ring gear clouting the hubshell, or the sliding clutch clouting the inside of the ring gear.  In each case the rattling varies depending on which gear you are in and whether the transmission is loaded (you are pedalling) or not.

In any case two things can improve matters;

1) attention to the internal clearance in the mechanism; this is set via the RH cone (with the LH cone unscrewed). The normal arrangement is to screw the RH cone fully home and then unscrew it ~1/3 to 1/2 turn. To lock this adjustment properly you need to fit  lockwasher HMW147 to the RH cone; the as currently supplied arrangement (which is to tighten the RH locknut as hard as possible against the cone) is simply not reliable.

2) use more, better lubricant. A semi-fluid grease of the correct type will be tolerated in larger quantities inside the hub and this  will help to quieten any rattle.

It is also possible that the actuator plate (HSA470) is loose and rattling or even damaged already. This too can be made to be more snug-fitting on the driver and less likely to rattle.

FWIW I think that NIG-type hubs such as SRF3 are somewhat more prone to rattles than some other variants. In any case none are as quiet as a SS or fixed gear is, but some are close.  I can't say as I have nailed every possible cause of rattles but above there are a few things to go at, anyway.

cheers

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2020, 07:30:40 pm »
BTW in addition to HMW147 as described above, the shopping list for a SRF3 ought to include

-HMW150; tab washer which fits between LH locknut and cone, and allows easier LH cone adjustment (often using just one spanner). [caveat; if a long axle is used in a smaller OLN frame, you may have to extend the flats on the axle by grinding]

 -HSL711; indicator guard. This spares the toggle chain should the bike fall over

- HMW518 (2 off, or 4 off). This anti rotation washer is made from wrought steel and is both strong and durable (unlike several of the alternatives). You can fit up to  four on  single axle, (two back to back each side), provided there is enough room on the axle. Very occasionally the slightly sloppy fit causes a problem, but not as often as the other types of lockwasher do, for various reasons.

- HSA470 'actuator plate'. This should be adjusted so that it is a snug fit on the driver (but still free to rotate). This part is known to break and you should be prepared to replace it at the first sign of trouble.   You can inspect/ replace it by removing the RH cone and the driver, which is a 15-minute job. Inspection for cracks every year or two isn't a bad idea.

- lubricator port. This part (as fitted to pre-~1987 hubs) seems to have gone NLA.  You can lubricate any conventional SA hub (i.e. with a toggle chain) by introducing lubricant via the hollow axle, which in some respects is better than the lubricant port, because the lube gets right to the middle of the workings.  Just make sure that top gear is selected (and engaged) before unscrewing the control rod.

Pre-NIG AWs have their own foibles; HSA370 is one of the longer axles (~163mm) available for this hub and is 'all solid'.

hth

cheers

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2020, 09:04:36 pm »
How come we've not discussed the retro-direct? Even better, retro-direct on a 3-sp  ::-). Risk of overlapping I suppose but suggest plan to pedal forwards in the lower gears.  O:-)
Cruzbike V2k, S40

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2020, 11:00:45 pm »
retro-direct? you would still need two freewheels attached to the SA driver; the freewheel inside the hub won't do any good unless one of the sprockets can bypass it altogether.

Practically speaking it would have to be an old AW with a threaded driver, and then the driver threads would have to be extended to accept two freewheels.  Not easy but it would be possible I suppose.

cheers

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2020, 06:30:53 pm »
One SRF3 on the way.

For the rim would a Sputnik be sensible or OTT? Otherwise probably an LX17.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2020, 07:24:35 pm »
One SRF3 on the way.

For the rim would a Sputnik be sensible or OTT? Otherwise probably an LX17.

overkill, probably, unless you really are intending to pack a very heavy load and want the rim to last for ever.   As with a singlespeed wheel, you can normally use a lighter rim because the wheel is low- or no-dish. 

cheers

Re: Bike recommendation - touring
« Reply #42 on: Yesterday at 03:48:50 pm »
Had the wheel built, 36 spoke LX17, solid as a rock:



Problem with fitting the shifter. The supplied clamp is 22.2 mm and my bars are 24.something increasing to 25.8 at the clamp. The shifter clamp is pretty solid (not the traditional SA stainless strip) and no amount of bodging will get it to fit. Clamps are not available separately, and the options are MTB, Seatpost and braze-on. The braze-on does not have a wotsit for holding the cable outer. The Seatpost one might fit the bars with a shim.

After a bit of head scratching and fiddling, I came up with this, which is not too much of a bodge:



The gearing with the supplied 18 tooth cog is 53"/70"/94" which is probably a little high. The direct drive is OK, but if it breaks in the middle of nowhere I'm left in 94" which is Steve Abraham territory. I reckon I'll try 21 teeth to give 45"/60"/80"
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.