Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 125
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by KanzaKrūzer View Post
    Tom,

    Thanks for the explanation. It helped me better understand how to compare the NuVinci 360 to a traditional cassette. I am pretty close to ordering a wheelset with the NuVinci and may just start with one of my existing cogs. If it is pretty easy to swap out cogs, I may order a 16t so I can try out all three (16t, 18t, 20t) depending on different types of riding.
    I just sold my unopened Alfine 11 and have ordered a N360 - I'll report back here with my impressions. My comparison will focus on my (primarily on-road) experience with Alfine 8 (2), Nexus 8, and Sturmey 3 speed hubs, plus an array of conventional drive train configurations

    I couldn't spare the cash to personally experience the 11 for multi-use - the catalyst for the sale is my own concern that stems from people blowing out the lower gears, and my unwillingness to risk a $500 hub test it out for myself.

    I see this as a nice interim step so I can see for myself what the NuVinci is all about, and for about 300 bucks (with discount) I think it is a worthwhile thing to do. It may become my ultimate solution, or may merely be a functional gap-bridger for several years until another option replaces it (Rohloff? imroved Alfine? some new offering?).

    I'll be running a 32-17 initially on the Nuvince, with 29er x 2.3-2.4 and 180 mm cranks.

  2. #52
    Ride & Smile
    Reputation: KanzaKrūzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    I ordered a wheelset with the NuVinci 360 for my Kona Unit and should take delivery in October. I plan to start out with a 16t cog and swap out to a 18t or 20t cog if needed. New wheelsets will also give me the opportunity to try out tubeless.

    I'll post feedback and photos.
    KanzaKrūzer
    Salsa Warbird | Kona Unit

  3. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by KanzaKrūzer View Post
    I ordered a wheelset with the NuVinci 360 for my Kona Unit and should take delivery in October. I plan to start out with a 16t cog and swap out to a 18t or 20t cog if needed. New wheelsets will also give me the opportunity to try out tubeless.

    I'll post feedback and photos.
    I got my N360 this week, and will build the wheel next week (Salsa Gordo 29). I won't get any riding time on it, though, until November (fingers crossed), after my Singular Gryphon frame arrives............

    The wheel should be good -n- strong. The flanges are essentially symmetrical (.5mm difference) from the hub center line, so virtually 0 dish.

    The hub is heavy, to be sure, but it didn't "feel" remarkably heavier than the Alfine (even though it is). The shifter sure is a trip, with that litle inchworm. I showed it to my wife who immediately proclaimed "cuuuuute!!!!!"
    WAF 1 , doghouse 0

  4. #54
    Ride & Smile
    Reputation: KanzaKrūzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    I asked NuVinci (Fallbrook Technologies) about using 32:18 or 32:20 and they replied with the following:

    "Going below the recommended 1 to 1.8 will void the warranty. The hub will function, but can put stresses on the system. "

    I will probably start out with 32:16 to stay within warranty and only consider a 18t or 20t cog if the 16t cog does work for my needs.

    The inch chart on their web site (Fallbrook Technologies) is for 26" wheels. Does running 29" wheels with 180m cranks change any of the variables or dynamics?
    KanzaKrūzer
    Salsa Warbird | Kona Unit

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    143
    Certainly. The torque on the hub drive mechanism is the key factor in stress on the system. Having a lower gear ratio means you're transferring more torque because you have more leverage. As such, if you have longer than standard cranks, you have even more leverage, which means more stress on the system. In that way, the limiting factor on gear ratio should also include crank length, or using gear-inches because it all has an effect on the load seen by the hub.

    However, for the average consumer that doesn't know much about bikes, crank length doesn't occur to them and these "average consumers" will be more likely to change cogs or chainrings than crank length, thus the 32:16 recommendation is a good enough rule of thumb for their terms.

    But even after all that, the rider is unpredictable...by that I mean, if you're a 130-lb XC racer type, or you're a 230-lb SS masher type, you're exerting very different loads on the drivetrain in order to accelerate you. Thus, the gear ratio should be higher for lead-soled clydes than for skinny kids to keep the actual load seen by the hub limited. Of course, no one can gauge their power output, so it's impossible to regulate that, so we're left with the imperfect-but-close-enough gear ratio limit.

    My stance is the lower you gear it, the less you will like it because of the drag and the way it will feel, but I'm personally not concerned about damage to the hub itself.

    Either way: start 32:16 and see how you like it. If it's not enough, then go lower and test it out.
    "I applaud your stupid idea because it is genius." - Eric Sovern, Surly

  6. #56
    Ride & Smile
    Reputation: KanzaKrūzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    I think I agree with you, but would like to clarify my understanding given the following 3 cog choices.

    • 32:16 = 2.0 ratio; is a higher gear ratio and puts less torque/leverage on the system
    • 32:18 = 1.8 ratio; is a medium gear ratio and puts average torque/leverage on the system
    • 32:20 = 1.6 ratio; is a lower gear ratio and puts more torque/leverage on the system

    I am a 250-lb rider that likes to stand up while climbing the hills putting my full weight on the 180m cranks. Having a 1.6 ratio makes it easier for a SS rider climbing the hills compared to a 2.0 ratio, but having an easier ratio places more stress on the system.

    Is that correct, or do I have everything reversed? The reason I question this is it seems like a 2.0 ratio would place less leverage on the system compared to a 1.6 ratio because of the energy used by the rider is less.
    KanzaKrūzer
    Salsa Warbird | Kona Unit

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    143
    Everything about that summary is correct. The more leverage you have (longer crank arms, lower gear ratio) the more you have to move your legs to get the same amount of movement outback. Or you can think of it like this, the load of your legs pushing down on the 180mm arms with a 32T chainring causes X tension in the chain. If you run that chain over a 18T cog in the back, the lever arm is short (smaller cog) so the torque on the hub will be half of what it would be at 36T in the back (because the lever arm is twice as long).

    Therefore, torque on the hub can be easily limited by requiring a higher gear ratio, but it's only one part of the equation in figuring out how much load is actually placed on the hub's juicy insides.
    "I applaud your stupid idea because it is genius." - Eric Sovern, Surly

  8. #58
    Ride & Smile
    Reputation: KanzaKrūzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    Got it, thanks!

    I should be safe with a 2.0 ratio from running 32:16. If there is more torque/leverage applied to the system because of 29 in wheels, 180 cranks and the full weight of a 250lb rider, it should still come within specs of their warranty. At the same time, I don't expect any failure like that reported with the Alfine 11.

    Should receive my wheelset next week and 16t cog the following week. Now I need to lose 6 lbs. of body weight to offset the added weight of the Nuvinci compared to running single speed.
    Last edited by KanzaKrūzer; 09-24-2011 at 01:58 PM.
    KanzaKrūzer
    Salsa Warbird | Kona Unit

  9. #59
    Ride & Smile
    Reputation: KanzaKrūzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    I heard back from NuVinci. Their speed up rule applies to all wheel and crank sizes. The front ring needs to be 1.8 times the rear cog, otherwise the set up is in violation and may not qualify for warranty. I will be in warranty with a 2.0 ratio with a 32:16.

    I received the NuVinci wheelset this week. Now I just have to wait for a 16t cog to arrive from HBC.
    KanzaKrūzer
    Salsa Warbird | Kona Unit

  10. #60
    Ride & Smile
    Reputation: KanzaKrūzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    When I use Sheldon Brown's gear calculator with the following variables:
    • 180 cranks
    • 2.5X29 wheel size
    • 32t chainring
    • 16t rear cog
    • NuVinci 360

    It calculates an equivalent range of 32:32 through a 32:9. Let me know if that is not correct.
    Last edited by KanzaKrūzer; 10-17-2011 at 10:47 AM.
    KanzaKrūzer
    Salsa Warbird | Kona Unit

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    270
    anyone in southern california have 1 of these hubs installed on a bike i could ride around the block, i am considering replacing my alfine 8 speed with it.

  12. #62
    Ride & Smile
    Reputation: KanzaKrūzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    I had my local bike shop swap out the single speed wheelset for a NuVinci set that I bought from Universal. I have not had much ride time, but my initial reaction is good. Needed to use an 8 speed chain since the single speed chain was too wide and rubbed part of the cable housing. Ergon shifter grip is perfect with NuVinci. Total bike weighs in just under 34 lbs.







    Last edited by KanzaKrūzer; 10-18-2011 at 07:08 AM.
    KanzaKrūzer
    Salsa Warbird | Kona Unit

  13. #63
    Ride & Smile
    Reputation: KanzaKrūzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    Ok, so I have taken the Kona Unit with NuVinci out on a couple rides and I am sold. The range is plenty wide and tons of fun. Changing the ratio can be in very small increments. I can stand and mash at any setting. This will be a great bike over the winter months. Love the tubless 30 lb. pressure as well.
    Last edited by KanzaKrūzer; 11-10-2011 at 06:30 AM.
    KanzaKrūzer
    Salsa Warbird | Kona Unit

  14. #64
    blet drive
    Reputation: JUNGLEKID5's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,136
    has any one tried this with a belt drive setup?
    Save a tree & wipe your butt with an owl.
    Thank your local Sierra Club.

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    121
    I received mine a couple of days ago. I was expecting the drag to be a little more than what it appears. I haven't ridden it on a climb yet. The range I am getting doesn't seem correct. For one revolution of input I am getting 5/8 on the low end and 2-1/4 on the high end for 2.25/.625 = .360%. I thought I should have gotten 0.50 and 1.80 respectively for 1.8/.5 = 360%, "NuVinci 360". I would rather have the lower ratio on the low end for climbing. I am going to see if I can adjust the shifter rotation on the hub to get a lower ratio.

    I intentionally connected the cables the other way around. I like the back twist motion to shift to a lower ratio. Sometimes on a climb I will be pulling on the bars and accidentally pull on the twist shifter. I prefer this to shift me to a lower ratio if I am not already there which I am most of the time on a steep climb.

    I only got this thing because it seems like an amazing device. How you can get this kind of traction between two pieces of smooth metal that is lubricated with a magical oil is pretty amazing. Torque oil, I had never heard of it.

    I would assume the weak point is the twisting force on the shaft of the steel balls and how they are restrained in the cage. There are eight of them so it might hold up pretty well.

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    89
    I received this hub a weeks ago and have been using it on a Salsa Vaya w/ Hubbub adapter. I wish there was a real dropbar solution...

    Anyways, the shifter works great, and it's a blast to ride! I've had a grudge against derailleurs for years since I smashed my MTB on the right side in a crash and had to limp home in only one gear because I whomped the derailleur. Honestly, it's the weakest point on the whole bike! It needs some serious re-invention to make it less delicate. The gear range is more than enough here in the flatlands, and I would venture in a hilly area it would suffice too. For a mountainous region I would consider adding a double chainring up front for uphill/downhill shenanigans.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    121

    NuVinci on a Mountain Bike

    I just got mine recently also. I have it on a mountain bike. It is neat from an engineering point of view and fun to ride. The shifting is weird but easy and neat. The efficiency is the problem. I haven't figured out where the efficiency loss is. It must either be in the compression of the oil to make it turn into a solid or the relative twisting between the rings and balls when the oil is in the solid mode.

    I left my front rings on. So I am climbing with a22 x 18 ratio. 1.2 vs their recommend lowest of 1.8. So I will be a test case for how much torque it can take. So far it seems solid climbing a hill with this gear ratio and the hub cranked to the lowest ratio.

    I will use it only when I go for an easy ride. If I ride with a pack of ten riders I my be in the middle of the pack with deraillers, about 2/3 back with the Alfine 11, 3/4 back with the Rolhoff, and dead last with the Nuvinci 360. I have all three. There are climbs I have to stop and rest or hike with the Nuvinci that I make with my other bikes. The drag is just too much with the Nuvinci and the weight doesn't help on a climb.

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by geweber View Post
    ... If I ride with a pack of ten riders I my be in the middle of the pack with deraillers, about 2/3 back with the Alfine 11, 3/4 back with the Rolhoff, and dead last with the Nuvinci 360. ....
    Very interesting comparison.

    I've had the 8 spd Nexus red-band, 8 spd Alfine 501 &, now, the Rohloff & I much prefer the Rohloff over the two Shimano hubs. Either on-road or on-trail. Just my preference.

    Was your comparison on-road or on-trail? I'm guessing on-trail but just want to be sure. And, if you don't mind, what was it about the Alfine that put it ahead of the Rohloff? Thanks in advance.

    .

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    121
    I have the Alfine 11, which is quite a bit different than the Alfine 501 8 speed. The Alfine 11 shifts smoother and has less drag than the Rohloff. However, the Alfine 11 cannot take nearly as much torque and the new second one I have is giving a hard click on the average of once and hour. The Rohloff is much more durable. The Alfine 11 uses some helical gears and oil which makes it quite a bit different than the Alfine 8. From what I read the Alfine 8 is more durable than the Alfine 11.

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by geweber View Post
    I have the Alfine 11, which is quite a bit different than the Alfine 501 8 speed. The Alfine 11 shifts smoother and has less drag than the Rohloff. However, the Alfine 11 cannot take nearly as much torque and the new second one I have is giving a hard click on the average of once and hour. The Rohloff is much more durable. The Alfine 11 uses some helical gears and oil which makes it quite a bit different than the Alfine 8. From what I read the Alfine 8 is more durable than the Alfine 11.
    Thanks for the reply & feedback.

    There's no question that both my previous Shimano hubs shifted more smoothly than any of my Rohloffs but ... I can live with the slight shift 'clunkiness' in exchange for greater durability, QR, non-fiddly cable system & greater range. The Rohloff hubs will probably outlive me.

    Really can't remember there being that much a difference in drag between the hubs though. I feel it's negligible. It's certainly not something I've noticed on any of the hubs in use. OTOH, there seems to be a noticeable difference in drag between Shimano's top of the line dynamo hub & the Schmidt SON. I didn't believe it until I switched to the SON. What's funny is, I didn't switch because of the drag in the Shimano dynamo hub but because I didn't like the centerlock conversions available & wanted a dynamo hub with a six bolt disc mount but didn't trust the SRAM so 'settled' for the SON even though the price was painful.

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    89
    I can't believe some riders are gearing their hubs so low... I've run mine 38/20, 42/22, 42/20, 48/20 & 48/22. I'm feeling pretty good about the 42/20, but when I'm riding solo in the flatlands at full steam I max out the hub. I'm thinking of using 44/20 next. So many sprockets in the tool box now...

    The drag on the hub has decreased with use significantly. When I first got it, I could barely push 17 mph, and that was at a dead sprint, with 13 mph being the average. I'm about 600 miles deep now, and I keep up 17 in the straightaways and if I'm feeling really good that day I can keep up 19-20 for a couple miles.

    I asked NuVinci support about the most efficient ratio and they say to target your optimum gearing for the 1:1 ratio. I've geared mine a little lower than cruising speed so I don't get killed on the uphills. For those of you riding in more flat terrain I would highly recommend this hub. I don't think I could recommend this hub for mountainous terrain.

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    270
    I have this on my trek marlin 29er with a lefty dlr2, 7" rear and a 8" front juicy 7 combo for braking, running Duro Easy Ride Tire - 700c x 60 (29" x 2.35), Wire Bead, Black w/Reflective Wall tires for street riding.


    I replaced my alfine 8 speed ( i only had the alfine on for 3 weeks and got this) with this and haven't missed it. I ended putting the alpine in my cannondale hooligan (which by the way is an AWESOME RIDE)


    I love it but does anyone else have the "problem" of the shifter making a slight grinding or friction sound when you first start to shift?

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    270
    found the shifter grinding sound cable was "derailed" inside the shifter since it was new so re-routed and cleaned it up inside it seems fine now...

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    270
    Well I found that not only was there grinding and binding but the hub was not hitting maximum overdrive, was afraid i was going to have to change the ring or cog. The shift cables in the shifter being derailed and my not noticing caused me to cut the cables to short and not give it full range. Re-did the cables and fixed the shifter and now it does a lot better...

  25. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    270

    my nuvinci rig

    here is my rig I run Juicy 7's for stopping and Duro easy ride2.385 width tires for street duty, with a lefty fork
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails NuVinci N360: Amateur Review-29-rh-1024-copy.jpg  


  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    236

    Singular Gryphon with Nuvinci

    I'll jump in the mix and add to the growing number of folks who are sharing their experiences with the N360.

    I just built a Gryphon with a N360, to be used as my daily commuter as well as offroad (quick removal of fenders/rack, tire swap).

    I've just started riding it on my commute (16 mi RT) and so far, I'm really liking it. I'll report back as I spend more time with it.
    It seems that I am keeping similar (perceived - I do not have a speedo) pace as with my old Alfine 8 and with my son's XT-equipped Motobecane (with slicks). The "feel" is very smooth, and to my legs it feels pretty efficient right out of the box - very solid, no mushiness.

    One thing I'm already finding is that when I start from a stop (at a light, for example), I can twist the shifter smoothly while out of the saddle to give me a really smooth acceleration to my cruising speed. Cool. I could not do that on either the XT or Alfine drive trains without some form of skipping/grinding.

    I posted pics and more about the build here, but here's a couple of teaser pics for this thread (in commuter guise):
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails NuVinci N360: Amateur Review-gryphon-side1.jpg  

    NuVinci N360: Amateur Review-gryphon-nuvinci-1.jpg  


  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    89
    canyoneagle - Welcome to the N360 family! I'm glad you like your hub so much. Over time, either mine has gotten 'more' efficient or I just got better with shifting because my average speeds match my old derailleur equipped bike. I can easily cruise around 18 mph now. Your Gryphon is gorgeous, I saw your thread in the commuter forum.

    Two questions: 1. what is on your water bottle boss on the seat tube? 2. What are you gearing your at right now? That's possibly the smallest chainring I've seen on this setup! My Vaya is quite similar to your frame, but I'm quite jealous of the eccentric hub. I have to use a tensioner

  28. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by crazylemurboy View Post
    canyoneagle - Welcome to the N360 family! I'm glad you like your hub so much. Over time, either mine has gotten 'more' efficient or I just got better with shifting because my average speeds match my old derailleur equipped bike. I can easily cruise around 18 mph now. Your Gryphon is gorgeous, I saw your thread in the commuter forum.

    Two questions: 1. what is on your water bottle boss on the seat tube? 2. What are you gearing your at right now? That's possibly the smallest chainring I've seen on this setup! My Vaya is quite similar to your frame, but I'm quite jealous of the eccentric hub. I have to use a tensioner
    The seatpost box is my super secret turbo boost. shhhh!
    No, it is actually my lock. I use an Abus bar-link folding like, and like it quite a bit.

    The chain ring is a 32t, and my hub came with a 18T cog. This gives me a gear spread (with my 700x50's) of about 25-90 or so gear inches.

  29. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    89
    Ah, I didn't factor in the large wheel. That will definitely increase the gear ratio. I'm using a 48 x 22 T setup right now with a 700 x 38 tire. Lately I've considered going down just a smidge to 47 in the front. I kind of wish I could throw on the bigger rubber, I love the way the fat tires roll. I can't imagine getting over 42mm of rubber under my fenders. Love your setup, thanks for the tip of the lock. One last question: does the front fork have rack bosses?

  30. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by crazylemurboy View Post
    One last question: does the front fork have rack bosses?
    Nope. In time, I plan to try my hand at brazing some bosses on there and re-painting the fork.

  31. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4
    I just built up a wheel with the N360 for my Marin Hamilton 29er. Have not yet been able to ride it more than just around the block, but I am a heavy guy, and it has worked fine so far. After learning how it works, I wanted to see for myself about the slippage or lack thereof; I put the front brake on and stood on the forward pedal, and there is nothing in the way of slippage. Kind of weird thinking about totally smooth ball bearings against totally smooth rings not slipping, so the real magic here is the oil. My intent is to have a do everything bike, from road rides (30 miles), to commuting, to technical singletrack, to pulling my son around the sidewalks in his trailer (1 year old), and I think this bike nails it thanks to this hub. It has plenty of top end, and a low enough gear to make the steep hill at the end of my street easy (with a 32x18 set up). I am really looking forward to getting a decent ride in to be able to really use this in a variety of situations.

  32. #82
    On MTBR hiatus :(
    Reputation: Speedub.Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,145
    From that standpoint, it really is a unique hub that can't be matched. I agree, "slippage" is a non-issue, although I do feel mine was a little draggy, and the smoothness and quietness is unmatched. I think you'll be really happy with yours for your intended uses.
    speedub.nate
    · MTBR Hiatus UFN ·

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4
    To add to my original reply, I went on a 15 mile ride through rolling hills with 2 steep, longer climbs to really shakedown the hub system, and I can say that I am sold. It is a completely different way of riding, responding to drops in cadence rather than drops in speed or effort. Grinding a 18% grade in full underdrive, where some said you can feel the resistance, I didn't notice it at all. Maybe I need to find a steeper off road grind to truly test this, but if there is any major resistance I didn't notice it. The bike accelerates on a slight downhill grade, and I completed the 15 mile loop in the same amount of time it takes me on my road bike. I think the best thing is being able to pedal and slowly roll the shifter back to smoothly accelerate from a stop, and doing the same with rolling terrain.

    I am a heavy guy, over 250lbs, so the extra weight is a moot point for me. My only complaint is I would like more top end, but I think a swap for a 16t on the back will help out without losing too much granny gear. I am looking forward to trying some technical singletrack with this bike now!

  34. #84
    Dinner for wolves
    Reputation: buddhak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,557
    Rousting this thread from its slumber because I am in the horns of a dilemma...please help.

    I have a Pugsley that is going to be used for the following activities:
    - Replace my commuter/kid hauler/human powered SUV
    - Ride on the sand on the annual beach vacations we take
    - Extend my mountain bike season with some snowy trail riding here in Eastern Pa.

    I have a standard 2x9 transmission on there now, and the beach riding tore it up something awful this summer. For this and many other reasons I want to give the IGH option a go.

    The plan: I have some 80mm rims on order to build up a puffy wheelset for the sand/snow. The hub is going to be an Alfine 8 or a NuVinci n360. The Rohloff is just too pricey, and would never make it past the CFO veto. The current wheelset is a standard Large Marge deal, but I have 26x3.0 street tires on there. Eventually I will gut one of them and put another IGH in that set as well.

    My priorities: durability and gear range...primarily for snow and sand. Seems like n360 would be the shoe-in, but in reading this thread it seems like the n360 likes to be in the upper gear ranges. On my Pugs I will probably be doing most of my off road riding in the 35-55 gear inch range.

    My assessment: Put the Alfine into the 80mm rim snow/sand wheel set first. Eventually put the n360 into the commuting wheel set when funds allow.

    Outstanding questions:
    - Which would you choose for snow covered single track with technical features here and there?
    - Which hub would tolerate riding in the 25 gear inch range better?
    - Why did Diller sell the n360 Pug?
    Responds to gravity

  35. #85
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak View Post
    - Why did Diller sell the n360 Pug?
    Yo I shouldn't have, I miss that thing.

    I sold the Pug to my best friend, privately. He couldn't keep it, because of objections from his SO and a small living space / not using the bike for what it's intended. So I sold it publicly. To a guy I knew would give it a good home.

    My wife also didn't want me having a frivolous amount of fat bikes. So I sold it after finding a buyer who I knew would give it a good home.

    Both the Alfine and the N360 have the same unsatisfactorily high gearing range when it comes to snow and sand crawling. Sucks, man.

    I had no functional problems with either hub in the cold or wet, though. Only thing with the Alfine: keep that shift cable clean.

    The only problem I had with undergearing the N360 was a squishy, inefficient feeling in the bottom portion of the gearing gradient. But, when you're plowing over or through 4" or more of snow, efficiency is kind of a "haha, efficiency" conversation. Big Fat Larry and 100mm rims are easily available these days, which I think will have a greater impact than fretting over which hub.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  36. #86
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    buddhak, on the which-hub-of-the-two question... that's tough. If you can handle thinking about the way Alfine likes to be shifted (back off when shifting to an easier gear), go that route. On the other hand, snow can be pretty wacky and the completely thoughtless shifting of the N360 was cool. Also, easier to shift the N360 grip shifter inside a pogie.

    Tough call.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  37. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rob_E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    254
    I don't know if you can get the N360 to 25 gear inches and stay within the manufacture's specs. If you can, or if you get close, I think you will be at the lowest end of the range. I don't know that riding around in the lower gear range of a Nuvinci is a problem. The hub is just at maximum efficiency in the middle of the range. Efficiency is something that seems to give some people pause and bothers others not at all. If I hit a hill, and drop my bike into it's lowest gear, I sometimes wish I could go a little lower, but never think, "Wow, this is inefficient."

    That said, my bike is not a fatbike and not a mountain bike. But I dream of fatbikes at night, and they all have Nuvinci hubs, for what it's worth. With any IGH/single chainring combo, the lower you gear it, the lower the range. If you could gear the Alfine lower than the Nuvinci, you could get those 25 gear inches you want, but you'd also loose a lot more from the top end. If you were strictly mountain biking, maybe that would be fine, but if it's also your 'round town utility bike, you might occasionally want that high end. I use my whole range, and even though in commuting/round-town mode my bike is geared higher then the minimum (38-134 gear inches), I spend a decent amount of time in the top half of the range.

  38. #88
    Dinner for wolves
    Reputation: buddhak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,557
    Thanks for the feedback, Drew.

    I can't fit the big meats on the Pugsley, so I went the 80mm route. That and the GFS rims cost $30/piece! This is a tough call, indeed. So, am I correct in interpreting from your post that although the n360 felt squishy in the low ranges, it didn't really bother you while you were in the heat of the moment? Because, if that is the case, I may grab the NuVinci first. The 100% sealed construction and infinite gear steps (and wider range!) sound perfect. The only thing holding me up was the low range behavior of the NuVinci.
    Responds to gravity

  39. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rob_E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    254
    I'm sure Drew will chime in with his fatbike experience, but I will say that for my part the low end "squishiness" was weird, but not bad. Just different. And either it didn't last or I'm so used to it now that I don't notice.

  40. #90
    Dinner for wolves
    Reputation: buddhak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob_E View Post
    I don't know if you can get the N360 to 25 gear inches and stay within the manufacture's specs. If you can, or if you get close, I think you will be at the lowest end of the range. I don't know that riding around in the lower gear range of a Nuvinci is a problem. The hub is just at maximum efficiency in the middle of the range. Efficiency is something that seems to give some people pause and bothers others not at all. If I hit a hill, and drop my bike into it's lowest gear, I sometimes wish I could go a little lower, but never think, "Wow, this is inefficient."

    That said, my bike is not a fatbike and not a mountain bike. But I dream of fatbikes at night, and they all have Nuvinci hubs, for what it's worth. With any IGH/single chainring combo, the lower you gear it, the lower the range. If you could gear the Alfine lower than the Nuvinci, you could get those 25 gear inches you want, but you'd also loose a lot more from the top end. If you were strictly mountain biking, maybe that would be fine, but if it's also your 'round town utility bike, you might occasionally want that high end. I use my whole range, and even though in commuting/round-town mode my bike is geared higher then the minimum (38-134 gear inches), I spend a decent amount of time in the top half of the range.
    Thanks Rob E,

    More good feedback.

    On the Sheldon Brown gear calculator, assuming a fat wheel/tire hits the 29" diameter mark, the 1.8:1 ratio minimum for the n360 gets you in the 26-27 gear inch neighborhood. Upper range in the 88-90 gear inch range. Let's say I sacrificed warranty concerns and set up the gearing lower - say, to a 19-71 gear inch range. Would that improve the feel of the NuVinci in the approximate 25 gear inch range? I know torque would increase, but the position of the balls on their track would also change. Does that make a difference at all, or is it torque induced changes in the oil viscosity that affects the feel of the hub?
    Responds to gravity

  41. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rob_E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    254
    I am only guessing and trying to remember from early days with my hub, but I want to say that the squishiness seemed more related to being at the bottom of the range rather than being tied to the torque. I could be 100% wrong on that. But if I'm right, then undergearing it would give you a more solid feel at 25 gear inches. But unless you felt that you wanted that 19, I would at least try the hub in manufacturer's specs before under gearing it.

    Again, the folks who have used the hub in mountain biking applications will have better input, but I would say make your decisions based on highest low gear you can enjoy, and put thoughts of squishiness out of your head. You will get used to it or it will go away.

  42. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4
    I am using mine on a 29er mountain bike with 32x18 primary drive. This gives a range of 26 to 93 gear inches, which handles the off-road stuff beautifully. I see no real reason why a 30x19 wouldn't work, even though NuVinci suggests against it, because the amount of force I am applying to the hub when standing in low is significant (I am 280#). It just keeps working smoothly through all conditions. Another thing I noticed, I started my IGH journey with a 2 speed kickback hub from SA, and I kept breaking cogs. They were the lousy 3 tab ones for coaster brakes. Shimano has a 4 tab, because I looked at the Alfine, but they are still rounded off. High torque applications might be an issue, they sure were for me. The N360 has the 9 spline cassette cogs, which are bulletproof so far

  43. #93
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak View Post
    am I correct in interpreting from your post that although the n360 felt squishy in the low ranges, it didn't really bother you while you were in the heat of the moment?
    That's a fair statement. It bothered me on sustained, greater than 10% grades. Which, if attempted on warm snow, isn't going to happen anyway no matter what gearing you have going.

    I don't think gunk is a big deal for the Alfine either. I'd clean it after a season (this is my first with one), and there are instructions on how to do it. My own hub is second hand and several Alaskan seasons old. The previous owner cleaned it once a year and it works fine.

    One other thing I really like about the N360 is the ability to change the cable pull direction. Can't do that on the Alfine.

    Alfine still gets the prize for standing-still shifts, though. N360 can shift through part of the range while not pedaling, but not all of it. Possibly important after falling into a snow drift (which is hilarious going in and infuriating getting out).
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  44. #94
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    Another thought buddhak - if you're concerned about damaging the N360 from undergearing, and you're mostly on snow. Dude, when you push the pedals really hard, the tire slips. Even a Surly Nate, in the wrong kind of snow/slush. Hard to over torque anything when the tires are struggling for purchase, meaty as they may be.

    EDIT: I guess what I'm saying if you're really jonesing to get into the fat bikes for snow thing, expect some pushing. It varies with the snow present, just like with any snow sport. Some days it's great. Some days it is simply a grueling workout and people think you're nuts.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  45. #95
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak View Post
    I can't fit the big meats on the Pugsley, so I went the 80mm route. That and the GFS rims cost $30/piece!
    Also, you can squeeze BFLs onto 80mm rims and still make the Pugs stays. You're good there.

    GFS rims have a garbage reputation, but you know... they do the job.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  46. #96
    Dinner for wolves
    Reputation: buddhak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,557
    Right on, Drew

    I have been out in the snow on my 29er on a few occasions. It was fun, but 1 mile felt like 10. I am anticipating much suffering with the Pugs. I know the GFS is a crude product, but at least it is priced accordingly! One day I may graduate to the Rolling Darryl or UMA.

    By the way, I am now much better informed, but no less confused about which hub to get.
    Responds to gravity

  47. #97
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak View Post
    By the way, I am now much better informed, but no less confused about which hub to get.
    LOL

    I try.

    To be fair I'm still in the same boat. I think about bike drivetrains more than anyone should. Same with software dude. Just because something IS doesn't mean it SHOULD.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  48. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4
    The Alfine is meant to be a commuter hub, not to say it can't be on a mountain bike. The N360 is more all around, and has come as OEM on an Ellsworth mountain bike. Get the hub that offers the features you want

  49. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12
    Very good review, thanks a lot OP, this makes decision process easier.

  50. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,206
    Thread resurrection time!

    I am considering a N360 for a 29" mountain tandem, so weight is not an issue, but low end gearing is a potential issue.

    The Rohloff is expensive and it still requires shifting, also it is not an undergear champ unless I run outside mfd specs. I want the Nivinci for the things that a CVT can provide:

    1) improved transitions, esp in tight terrain where getting just the right gear can be hard when your managing 350# plus bike weight
    2) less abrupt starts, smoother low speed climbing turns, reduced overtorque
    3) more range than a standard 3 x 9.

    The plan is to build a Nuvinci 360 wheel and retain a 2x front drive, so doubling the range to ~700%.

    Right now we are running 44/33/22 x 11-34

    Am I going to suffer for a lack of undergearing?

    Am I crazy?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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