Classified hub - Is this the new big thing?

[pmprego]

So the ratio between the gears is set at a fixed 0.686?
What if you want a bigger or smaller jump?

The jump between "big" ring and "small" ring is the 0.686. You can then use all the gears in either "virtual" front rings. The 0.686 is just to make it work as a theoretical 50/30 or 52/36 that roadies usually use.

[FrederickVCyclestein]

So the ratio between the gears is set at a fixed 0.686?
What if you want a bigger or smaller jump?

Shift the rear cassette a cog at the same time.

[tjvirden]

Agreed. It's not a new concept, but it's refined enough for me to consider. The main issue is the friction losses in the low-gear. At their claimed 99% efficiency, that's 2.5W lost at 250W. Being able to stay in a 50t chainring vs a 34t chainring is the difference of about 1W at 250W. If we're more pessimistic and assume about 97% efficiency compared to a 2x setup, then that's 7.5W lost at 250W + 1W gained back from running a larger chainring. That's a lot to give up for someone trying to compete at any level.

Someone should definitely test it, now that there are bikes out with this thing. If the 99%+ efficiency claim holds up, then I think Classified would potentially win out over traditional set up because shifting is much easier/faster than with the FD (actually it seems like it's easier and better than the RD), so you would use optimal chainline more. When you take aero gains into consideration, it's almost certainly better than the usual set up.

Let's also imagine a few more marginal refinements and gains over the next 5 years in efficiency, weight, etc., and I can see this becoming a "must-have" tech for all high end bike set ups.

High-end bikes for tarmac or gravel?
I can't see it being "must-have" anywhere really - I think it will be similar to a Lauf fork in that respect; a good product, useful in some circumstances but with distinct drawbacks.

Beyond the reduction gear efficiency hit, it has the 1x disadvantage of really poor chainline over at least half the cassette (that's more wear+noise, than power loss), fixed (0.686) reduction ratio (ok they could offer alternatives), limited rim choice at the moment, and last of all weight. It just seems a really complicated way of adding a boring old (AKA unfashionable) front mech.

I like it, but I think it's niche.....

[aeroisnteverything]

Agreed. It's not a new concept, but it's refined enough for me to consider. The main issue is the friction losses in the low-gear. At their claimed 99% efficiency, that's 2.5W lost at 250W. Being able to stay in a 50t chainring vs a 34t chainring is the difference of about 1W at 250W. If we're more pessimistic and assume about 97% efficiency compared to a 2x setup, then that's 7.5W lost at 250W + 1W gained back from running a larger chainring. That's a lot to give up for someone trying to compete at any level.

Someone should definitely test it, now that there are bikes out with this thing. If the 99%+ efficiency claim holds up, then I think Classified would potentially win out over traditional set up because shifting is much easier/faster than with the FD (actually it seems like it's easier and better than the RD), so you would use optimal chainline more. When you take aero gains into consideration, it's almost certainly better than the usual set up.

Let's also imagine a few more marginal refinements and gains over the next 5 years in efficiency, weight, etc., and I can see this becoming a "must-have" tech for all high end bike set ups.

High-end bikes for tarmac or gravel?
I can't see it being "must-have" anywhere really - I think it will be similar to a Lauf fork in that respect; a good product, useful in some circumstances but with distinct drawbacks.

Beyond the reduction gear efficiency hit, it has the 1x disadvantage of really poor chainline over at least half the cassette (that's more wear+noise, than power loss), fixed (0.686) reduction ratio (ok they could offer alternatives), limited rim choice at the moment, and last of all weight. It just seems a really complicated way of adding a boring old (AKA unfashionable) front mech.

I like it, but I think it's niche.....

The chainline comment is really odd . Unlike 1x, with this hub you can actually keep the chain in the middle of the cassette for a much higher % of the time than either a true 1x set up or even a 2x, given that most people tend to "spare" their FD and shift with mainly with RD. The great thing about this is that this has all of the benefits of 1x without any of the drawbacks.

Efficiency hit is a question mark. If they are 99% efficient in the lower ratio, then there is no real hit here - you win some by not having the smaller front chainring and you loose some in the hub, but it's all pretty close. Like I said though, someone needs to test it.

I think this will become mainstream if their wheel selection becomes wider. I think the current positioning for gravel could also be partly because gravel RDs have a clutch so are better for running a 1x setup.

[pmprego]

And this is a 1st Gen product. Now it might focus as an alternative to 1x systems. As any other company starting a business. Focus on a core product/market. They can easily and correctly focus on the gravel market. If I were them I'd focus on the gravel market for many reasons (most of all because a lot of people is entering it thus buying new full bikes).

But I guess this can and will also be applied to mtb.

In the future, if they find a way to build their system in any wheel then I guess they are really onto something for road.

[Cycomanic]

Tour magazin tested the efficiency of the classified and unfortunately it does not look that great. They found 93.5% efficiency in the easiest gear. Compared to ekar that was 2.5% to 4% less efficient (dependent on gear). So if your riding up a mountain at FTP of let's say 300 W and your friend is riding ekar next to you they only have to push 287W. Compared to a 2x12 that difference will be even bigger because it's even more efficient.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

[tjvirden]

And this is a 1st Gen product. Now it might focus as an alternative to 1x systems. As any other company starting a business. Focus on a core product/market. They can easily and correctly focus on the gravel market. If I were them I'd focus on the gravel market for many reasons (most of all because a lot of people is entering it thus buying new full bikes).

But I guess this can and will also be applied to mtb.

In the future, if they find a way to build their system in any wheel then I guess they are really onto something for road.

I certainly agree that gravel is the right focus for them and I'm sure some people will want to at least try it on "road" bikes, but for mtb they'd need to produce a much stronger (heavier) version - chain tension with tiny chainrings will be way too high for this first version to handle.

[raggedtrousers]

It looks very cool and my first reaction was 'I want one'. But then, thinking about it a little more, it seems like marginal benefits for quite a big outlay, being tied into 1 wheel brand, and potentially efficiency losses. Also, I bet those machined cassettes aren't cheap to replace.

That said, I'm sure this will get more refined and less expensive, and then if they can find a way to make it work with stock cassettes and a range of freehubs, they might be on to something big.

[Kayrehn]

Can they just sell the cassette separately? That looks awesome, and hopefully it doesn't have the problem the Rotor Uno has with the larger cogs breaking off.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[TobinHatesYou]

Can they just sell the cassette separately? That looks awesome, and hopefully it doesn't have the problem the Rotor Uno has with the larger cogs breaking off.

You'd need a proprietary freehub. It wouldn't save you any weight over light conventional rear hub and monoblock cassette.

[Singular]

It looks very cool and my first reaction was 'I want one'. But then, thinking about it a little more, it seems like marginal benefits for quite a big outlay, being tied into 1 wheel brand, and potentially efficiency losses. Also, I bet those machined cassettes aren't cheap to replace.

That said, I'm sure this will get more refined and less expensive, and then if they can find a way to make it work with stock cassettes and a range of freehubs, they might be on to something big.

I am a bit intrigued by it, but I won't commit to anything for quite some time. One idea stuck with me, though;

Essentially, the classified rear hub is like an overdrive option (no, an underdrive!). Wouldn't it be possible to use a "normal" rear wheel, axle and cassette like a road 1x solution for go-fast road riding, and just install the Classified wheel/axle when heading out for the type of riding where you'd need a set of lower gearing (gravel, travel, climbing)?

With that said, a front derailleur and a chainring is not a huge pain to schlepp around even on those days you're never downshifting...

A solution looking for a problem?

[TobinHatesYou]

I am a bit intrigued by it, but I won't commit to anything for quite some time. One idea stuck with me, though;

Essentially, the classified rear hub is like an overdrive option (no, an underdrive!). Wouldn't it be possible to use a "normal" rear wheel, axle and cassette like a road 1x solution for go-fast road riding, and just install the Classified wheel/axle when heading out for the type of riding where you'd need a set of lower gearing (gravel, travel, climbing)?

Of course that's possible, but there's not much reason to besides not wanting to upgrade old wheels with the Classified hub. In the 1:1 ratio, there are no additional friction losses. You're trading a lot of flexibility for a little bit of weight savings.

[Singular]

I am a bit intrigued by it, but I won't commit to anything for quite some time. One idea stuck with me, though;

Essentially, the classified rear hub is like an overdrive option (no, an underdrive!). Wouldn't it be possible to use a "normal" rear wheel, axle and cassette like a road 1x solution for go-fast road riding, and just install the Classified wheel/axle when heading out for the type of riding where you'd need a set of lower gearing (gravel, travel, climbing)?

Of course that's possible, but there's not much reason to besides not wanting to upgrade old wheels with the Classified hub. In the 1:1 ratio, there are no additional friction losses. You're trading a lot of flexibility for a little bit of weight savings.

Ah, the internals can be transferred between wheelsets - that's neat. Now, if one only could purchase a loose rear hub (shell)…

[tleo]

At 10,000 shifts per charge the battery life isn't stellar compared to Di2.

I looked at a recent ride of mine that was 1h 56m in duration. That ride over my typical terrain had 266 shifts. 10000/266 = 37 of those rides if I pushed it to the max which I'd never do. So under 30 rides leaving a nice safety margin and not running the Li-ion battery down close to zero (which isn't good for them). I've never check the number of rides on Di2 because it is so long but I can go months between charges.

[pmprego]

At 10,000 shifts per charge the battery life isn't stellar compared to Di2.

I looked at a recent ride of mine that was 1h 56m in duration. That ride over my typical terrain had 266 shifts. 10000/266 = 37 of those rides if I pushed it to the max which I'd never do. So under 30 rides leaving a nice safety margin and not running the Li-ion battery down close to zero (which isn't good for them). I've never check the number of rides on Di2 because it is so long but I can go months between charges.

10,000 shifts of the equivalente of the big ring. Still... 30 rides, one ride a day is a charge a month. Doesn't seem to me as a huge pain in rear.