Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    756

    Remote Mounted Rohloff Question

    I understand that the trans ratio for a Rohloff now must be at least 2.10 or higher.

    However, if it was remote mounted, with the input to the hub being as an example, 28 at the crank and 13 at the hub. from there fabricate off the brake side another 13 tooth sprocket driving the rear wheel.

    Would it matter how you tweaked the gearing in this manner without putting undue stress on the hub?

    Thanks for any input.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    371
    Interesting question. I wonder if the torque would be multiplied at the rear wheel or is that only with hydraulics? Anyway I look forward to the physicists and engineers popping out of the woodwork to give their view. Have I time to grab some popcorn?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by rifraf View Post
    Have I time to grab some popcorn?
    Looks like it...hope its a good one.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    725
    Somewhere on the Rohloff site they say that with a jackshaft (or equivalent) the input ratio to the hub must be kept "legal" i.e., 2.1:1; the final drive ratio can be whatever you like, and will not affect durability.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,251


    Page 47 of the Rohloff Manual
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post


    Page 47 of the Rohloff Manual
    Thanks ViK, seems like Rohloff anticipated the question.

    Popcorn time over?

    Would be interested in hearing from anyone who has done a remote frame mount.

    From what I have found, as long as the seals remain in good shape the gears are well protected, but some bearings are subject to rust?

    What prompted the idea was the seeking a way to further protect a pricey product by moving it up and out of the way as much as possible.

    Also, even with the lowest stock gearing, every gear above 11 is pretty much a waste for my style, just trying to balance it out for a little on both ends, going down one step in 8th might do it, if I understand the hub function correctly.

    Thanks again Vik.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,251
    I think a frame mounted Rohloff just to protect it from the elements is a waste of $$$/time. The hub is well sealed and changing the oil and hub seals is not a big issue. Building a custom frame and using a jackshaft just to avoid this maintenance doesn't make sense to me.

    Two reasons I could see make sense for a frame mounted Rohloff are:

    1. for a FS MTB to reduce unsprung weight at the rear wheel

    2. for a fatbike to get chain around massive rubber
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I think a frame mounted Rohloff just to protect it from the elements is a waste of $$$/time. The hub is well sealed and changing the oil and hub seals is not a big issue. Building a custom frame and using a jackshaft just to avoid this maintenance doesn't make sense to me.

    2. for a fatbike to get chain around massive rubber
    The intended use is on the beach, with fording streams in mind...ie, sand and salt, an ounce of prevention...?

    It also permits a symmetrical rear. (Custom PW KO Hub?) However, as I am now toying with doing all of the 'driving' off the right side...the Q factor is increased. But I believe my natural stance may permit this.

    There are other unknowns, like is there room at the crank/chainstay interface to allow this to work. And are the threaded cogs compatible with the threads on a Middleburn crank, so it could also serve as a lock ring. Will the offset required at the hub present its own challenges, etc.

    As for the expense vs reward, that is something to be decided last. At this point I just enjoy the thought process.

    I also place SOME value on being different for its own sake.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-24-2013, 12:34 PM
  2. Fox F-29 remote question
    By Big Tiki in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-08-2012, 03:01 PM
  3. Rohloff Speedbone Question
    By flobach in forum Internal Gear Hubs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-01-2011, 06:16 AM
  4. Rohloff shifter cable housing question
    By TimT in forum Internal Gear Hubs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 07:39 AM
  5. Bad boy rohloff question
    By syl3 in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-12-2011, 03:21 AM

Posting Permissions

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