Belts would likely be well received if more bikes were built to accommodate them. A belt with an IGH be extremely practical for people who don’t maintain their bikes. Children’s bikes, commuter bikes and occasional use bikes that get stored outside would benefit.
MHO Ray On Friday, September 13, 2024 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-7 Bill Lindsay wrote: > "elegant IMO" > > Elegance certainly is in the eye of the beholder. Even if you think your > derailleur-equipped bike(s) are inelegant, I think they are equivalently > elegant to your IGH bike(s). I think they are all valid and equivalently > elegant ways to realize a build. > > Pushing it to the limit of *Opinion*, in the IMO department, I'm becoming > convinced that chains are primarily good for being derailed. Shiftability > is the core attribute of contemporary chains. For me, if you've got a > drive train with no derailleurs, the preferable setup, in the IMO elegance > department is a BELT. A belt is a purpose built optimized object for a > no-derailleur setup. So, for optimal elegance (IMO), an IGH build should > be a belt build. IMO. > > Bill Lindsay > El Cerrito, CA > > > > On Thursday, September 12, 2024 at 4:52:56 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote: > >> Yes to the IGH; far more elegant IMO than a FD and a chain tensioner not >> to mention the multiple chainrings. But the defect of IGHs is the choice of >> ratios, drag -- if you choose a wider-range, more-ratios hub the internal >> friction increases, and if you choose the lowest drag options (several >> tests have shown that the basic SA 3 speed hubs have no more drag, or even >> a wee bit less drag, overall, than derailleur systems), you are limited to >> the more basic 2 and 3 speed hubs which have very limited range. >> >> But if you can get by with limited ratios, they're worth considering. >> I've built very usable all-rounder beaters with the venerable, durable, and >> in fact ineradicable AW, and the nice thing is that the these are very >> available, very cheap -- old units are about $50 on eBay and older ones, >> even the 114 mm OL ones, will work fine with 120 mm frames. I've set mine >> up with 3d/high/overdrive for pavement cruising with about a 72" gear, >> 2nd/direct at about 54", and 1st/low/underdrive at about 41". >> >> Couple the AW with a double ring and you can split the gaps in the AW for >> a very usable 6-speed -- my second complete bike build circa 1971 had a >> "half stepped" AW, tho' I used 2 cogs instead of 2 rings. >> >> But even more exotic SA IGH are available on eBay; the wonderful AM >> medium ratio hub comes up from time to time at reasonable prices (I got >> mine for well under $200 each -- $150? -- IIRC in runnable condition) and >> again the 114 mm OL will fit 120 mm frames with only strategic >> anti-rotation washer selection and placement. And, it uses the ubiquitous >> AW trigger shifter. Direct, 15.5% overdrive, 0.8654% underdrive; mine are >> geared75/65/56". And the AM is reputed to be, like the AW, one of SA's most >> durable hubs. >> >> And even the pure gold ASC close ratio fixed 3 speed. I got my 2 very >> cheaply, $200 NOS and $150 used but VG. But these are much rarer; I was >> lucky. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:19 PM Mackenzy Albright <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> ... I think an internal real hub like a sturmey-archer 3 speed with a >>> compact double crank and paul tensioner would be an incredible build.... >>> Price aside the roaduno is the perfect candidate for some fun builds. >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f099965d-9d44-414c-a9ed-06a1382a3f02n%40googlegroups.com.
