Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    28

    Rohloff Internal VS. External shifter cable routing

    Which is better the internal shifter cable routing or the EX? I have a Brodie uni-bomber (horizontal drop, v-brake only) that I want to re-deploy with a roholff this spring and realistically I'm looking at the TS model with internal cable routing. The EX shift routing uses full length housing while the internal routing has a section of exposed cable. What is your experience? Which solution shifts better and is more reliable?

    As a side note: I also have an EBB steel frame (currently SS) that that I may want to mount the rohloff on in the (far?) future. My understanding is that the hub can be converted to a DB-EX, correct me if I'm wrong.

  2. #2
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,730

    Ymmv

    I'm running a SpeedHub on a recumbent for road riding - got a screamin' deal on a basic hub (no disc-"internal" shifting). I converted it to disc and external "shift box" for less than full price on a basic hub - disc due to frame was disc only. Going disc requires the external shifter so I had to. But the Shift box fixed one issue for me: for "int" shift, you have to attach a cable stop to the frame, either on cantibrakepost (didn't have) or clamp-on.

    Also, I didn't want to run the long torque arm (more hose clamps), so I changed to the OEM2 axle plate with SpeedBone.

    With this setup, its easier to pull the wheel - thumbscrew removes shiftbox, open quick release and pull. With "int" shift, you have to undo both cables spring clips to get it loose, and also have to release torque arm - then QR/pull wheel.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    28

    not big on the torque arm

    I did some measurements and I think I can get away with an OEM-1 axle plate. My hub will be forward in the dropout (based on 38-16 gearing), leaving me about 25-30 mm of dropout behind the axle; the OEM plate has 15mm of contact, and starts 22mm from the center of the axle, this should leave me wtih at least 5mm of contact between the axle plate and the dropout. I really don't want to use the torque arm if can be helped.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: itsdoable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,878
    Current hubs can be converted to almost any option, although converting a TS to a CC means replaceing the internals, which is not economical. But you can easily convert the torque arm axle plates and shifter options.

    The external shifter box mechanism goes through a set of gears, so the shifting will feel slightly stiffer than the direct internal mech. But I would still recomend the external shift box. The Unibomber has a horizontal mount, and adjusting chain tension due to wear means moving the axle, which changes the distance from the internal shift mechanism to the cable mount on the frame - so you have to adjust the cables tension. Since the cable tension adjustment is limited, you may not have enough adjustment if you change gear ratios. With the external shifter box, this is not an issue. And since the hub lasts a long time (it gets better with time), if you ever upgrade the frame, you will be disc ready.

    I don't recomend the OEM-1 torque arm on the Unibomber, the horizontal mount is not designed to handle the forces from the torque arm, which will try to pry open the slot - this has been documented. I ran my Unibomber with the ugly aftermarket torque arm (with the internal shifter setup).

    Cheers,

    Tom

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    28

    Thanks, I hadn't considered ..

    the consequence of changing the axle length; that's a good argument for the external shifter.

    How much force does the hub generate through the axle plate? I wouldn't think it to be enough to damage a dropout! In fact while I was reading through some of the documentation and I did find a reference to the OEM-1 working with horizontal dropouts. I don't see how this would differ much from the Rohloff designed dropouts, they just look like horizontals turned verticle.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    28

    OK, I figured out how to search

    I've done a bunch of searches on 'Rohloff' and never got more than 15 (recent) matching threads. You have to mess with a couple default parameters to get the older threads.

    Looks like you are right itsdoable, OEM-1 with horizontal drops does not look like a good idea

  7. #7
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,730

    Whew!

    I was just coming back to say "Nooooo... don't use the OEM1 with a standard slot!", but somebody beat me to it and you figured it out. Think about the torque you can generate off the cranks - and then multiply it by the ratio in the Roholff - kinda like sticking a big prybar into the slot and wailing on it. Yow.

    I take it you don't have a rear IS disc mount on your frame to use the OEM2 with? The torque arm is that bad, and does have a QR - I only object to the hose clamps holding the base on. The Speedhub will be a blast one way or the other.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •