Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 118
  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
    141
    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
    141
    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
    269
    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
    2,011
    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
    269
    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
    269
    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
    269
    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
    269

    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  


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •