Real world Classified powershift experiences

[spdntrxi]

I suppose Classified gives you an advantage in these situations (i.e. huge chainrings), since the 1:0.686 ratio gives him a virtual 20-tooth gap (virtual 62-42ish), which would be substantially more than any 2x setup could offer.

While a 20T gap sounds impressive, the ratio is really what matters. A 1:0.686 ratio works out to be exactly the same as what is offered by a 52/36 or 50/34 crankset.

exactly... I while I understand that.. the real bonus would be lower. For instance if I could get .6 on my gravel bike.. which would be 50/30 hell yes sign me up.

[AndreLM]

This thread got me thinking about Classified as well...

I am probably alone in this one, but I think combining a Classified hub with Rotor 1x13 RD (configured as 12 speed) would make a very light system, with good enough shifting - even in fully integrated bikes - and excellent braking performance.

It would definitely look a Frankenstein though

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Stendhal]

It seems like we might get some more insight into top level performance for the Classified system this weekend:
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/victor ... g-weekend/

62T is a baller move on those roads though

With Adam Hansen's retirement, Campanaerts has taken over the mad bike scientist role on the Lotto team. Good for him, lots of respect.

[jayjay]

I am probably alone in this one, but I think combining a Classified hub with Rotor 1x13 RD (configured as 12 speed) would make a very light system, with good enough shifting

I think you are still tied to the Classified cassettes

[robeambro]

I suppose Classified gives you an advantage in these situations (i.e. huge chainrings), since the 1:0.686 ratio gives him a virtual 20-tooth gap (virtual 62-42ish), which would be substantially more than any 2x setup could offer.

While a 20T gap sounds impressive, the ratio is really what matters. A 1:0.686 ratio works out to be exactly the same as what is offered by a 52/36 or 50/34 crankset.

I said that Classified would be ideal in "these situations", ie a pro rider fitting a monstrous chainring, so I'm not sure what's the point of mentioning 50/34 and 52/36 setups?

[AndreLM]

I am probably alone in this one, but I think combining a Classified hub with Rotor 1x13 RD (configured as 12 speed) would make a very light system, with good enough shifting

I think you are still tied to the Classified cassettes

Yep... But I doubt the spacing in the 12s cassette from Classified is too different from Rotor's (or Shimano, SRAM, Campy...).

The idea of using Rotor is just that it is probably the lightest RD + shifter combo (especially considering it has a clutch)

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Miller]

I think you are still tied to the Classified cassettes

You are, because the Classified shifting internals occupy space that in a conventional wheel is taken up by the freehub. I think the Classified cassette must be quite conical.

[jlok]

If a FD can't shift 20T safely, then the 1x classfied hub makes sense when the pros want a 60T ring.

[joejack951]

I suppose Classified gives you an advantage in these situations (i.e. huge chainrings), since the 1:0.686 ratio gives him a virtual 20-tooth gap (virtual 62-42ish), which would be substantially more than any 2x setup could offer.

While a 20T gap sounds impressive, the ratio is really what matters. A 1:0.686 ratio works out to be exactly the same as what is offered by a 52/36 or 50/34 crankset.

I said that Classified would be ideal in "these situations", ie a pro rider fitting a monstrous chainring, so I'm not sure what's the point of mentioning 50/34 and 52/36 setups?

My point in mentioning those more common setups is simply to point out that the relative change (which is what matters, not simply tooth count) between 62 and 42 isn't anything special. With a properly profiled front derailleur, Shimano, Campagnolo, Microshift, and eventually maybe even SRAM, could all pull it off. Perhaps your point was that no front derailleur currently exists for that chainring combo? You seemed more impressed by the 'virtual 20-tooth gap' in your comment, though.

[joejack951]

I suppose Classified gives you an advantage in these situations (i.e. huge chainrings), since the 1:0.686 ratio gives him a virtual 20-tooth gap (virtual 62-42ish), which would be substantially more than any 2x setup could offer.

While a 20T gap sounds impressive, the ratio is really what matters. A 1:0.686 ratio works out to be exactly the same as what is offered by a 52/36 or 50/34 crankset.

exactly... I while I understand that.. the real bonus would be lower. For instance if I could get .6 on my gravel bike.. which would be 50/30 hell yes sign me up.

Bring back the 52/42/30 triple!

[BigBoyND]

Bring back the 52/42/30 triple!

If one of the three brands made this an option on their first or second tier group, I would buy it. Or a 50/30 if they can make it shift well!

[joejack951]

Bring back the 52/42/30 triple!

If one of the three brands made this an option on their first or second tier group, I would buy it. Or a 50/30 if they can make it shift well!

We all mourn the loss of this one:


...though it is a 52/39/30. I own two Stronglight carbon triples in 52/42/30. The biggest issue is finding front derailleurs that shift them cleanly.

[wheelsONfire]

I wonder how the development will progress. In some ways i think about Srams crank which was supposed to incorporate FD shifting.
Which system is really the better of these two?
Is simplicity just more simple, or is it the best?
If so, i guess Classified has gain here, or?

Let's say you build a new bike around Classified with your own choice of rims.
The hub, what are the potential problems one could face compared to a normal hub?
You could go Sram new Force levers and RD or RED RD.

[AJS914]

The biggest problem with this hub is the $1500 price tag. I just don't see how they get people to buy it costing so much. Ditching the front derailleur sounds cool untill you see the price tag.

[maurice1]

2 questions:
Can you configure the multiplier yourself for the smaller ring?
And since the common argument against 1x is the loss of power with angled chainline, we've all seen the graph a million times, has somebody tested if the aero/weight(?)/bigger chainring benefits outweigh the chainline inefficiency on the extremes of the cassette?