Real world Classified powershift experiences
Moderator: robbosmans
-
wheelsONfire
- Posts: 6294
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
- Location: NorthEU
I think it seems like a great kit! It's really something if i ever can afford a new road bike.
Bikes:
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Not possible unless you're a highly skilled machinist and there's enough space inside the hub; the ratio depends on the numbers of teeth on the planetary gears, and could only be changed by replacing these.
They need to make different gearing and more cassettes. It’s right now set up for road when the real sweet spot is gravel. The 0.686 is same as 52/36. Need something lower for gravel to replicate GRX 48/31. I would definitely stick it on a gravel bike if they made a lower gearing and also a cassette with 36 teeth or more so we can do really steep long gravel climbs that grx with 48/31 and 11-36 let’s you do. Don’t see the point on a road bike. Only real advantage is that you would never drop a chain but how often does that happen on the road anyway?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
aeroisnteverything
- Posts: 897
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:43 pm
The hub by itself is expensive, but buying a wheelset with a hub already there is not so bad, if you look.
-
joejack951
- Posts: 1162
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
- Location: Wilmington, DE
- Contact:
The 0.686 ratio would give you a 48/33 virtual crank or a 45/31. Not quite as low (or high, depending on chain ring choice) as GRX gives you but not all that far off. If they also do not have a wide range cassette I can see why that's a deal breaker, though. You may be losing 3-4 low gears depending on where their cassettes stop.cunn1n9 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:51 amThey need to make different gearing and more cassettes. It’s right now set up for road when the real sweet spot is gravel. The 0.686 is same as 52/36. Need something lower for gravel to replicate GRX 48/31. I would definitely stick it on a gravel bike if they made a lower gearing and also a cassette with 36 teeth or more so we can do really steep long gravel climbs that grx with 48/31 and 11-36 let’s you do. Don’t see the point on a road bike. Only real advantage is that you would never drop a chain but how often does that happen on the road anyway?
New wheels by HUNT.
https://eu.huntbikewheels.com/pages/cla ... unt-wheels
https://eu.huntbikewheels.com/pages/cla ... unt-wheels
-
CampagYOLO
- Posts: 728
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2021 3:58 pm
Once you add in the Powershift kit it's not really any cheaper than the full kit + wheels from Classified. Was hoping that it may be a cheaper alternative but I suppose it's good to have options when it comes to wheels.milanv wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:23 pmNew wheels by HUNT.
https://eu.huntbikewheels.com/pages/cla ... unt-wheels
-
aeroisnteverything
- Posts: 897
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:43 pm
Hambini having a negative view... Wow. Who would've thunk!
That said, the video is actually not unfair, but also does not present anything particularly new on this tech.
My general takeaways are as follows:
Yes, a 3-4% loss in lower gears is nothign to sneeze at. This might be less, because of the effects of smaller chain articulation up front since it always stays in the big ring. Maybe as low as 2%. In any event, this BADLY needs to be properly tested.
Even assuming the 3% loss as a given, use-cases will differ and so will the optimal choice.
1. When I ride in the UK, the number of times I am on a small ring is really tiny - there are just not that many long, steep hills here. I mean, there are some, but it's a 3-5 minute affair when you run into one, and it might happen twice or thrice on a 100 mile loop, and the rest of the ride is in a big ring. So that's like 15 minutes out of 5 hrs or so of riding, or around 5% of the time. Sometimes, the whole ride is in a big ring. And in races on crit circuits, it is invariably 100% of the time in a big ring. For that kind of use case, I think this Classified hub is a good fit, because even the small aero gains from loosing the front mech will on average be worth it. Hence I am very much considering this for the next bike build.
2. In a slighly marginal case like the Classics races, you need to think twice about this, but the ability to shift under full power with no risk of chain drop and then the potential breakaway scenario might weigh in favor of choosing the Classified system over traditional front mech (assuming the team can sort out a spare bike for you in case of a puncture). I can see why a rider like Campernaets, who wins rarely, and basically stakes everything on a breakaway effort, would choose this.
3. If you are racing or riding a lot in the mountains, with long climbs, or are doing really long alpine amateur events, this hub seems like a bad idea. You are spending a lot of time climbing, probably more than 50% of the ride in fact, and a lot of that will be small ring work unless you are Pogacar. Aero gains from loosing the front mech will be miniscule, the weight penalty will also be of concern, and the efficiency loss will weight heavily in favor of having a front mech.
4. For TT or triathlon, I would struggle to find reasons NOT to have this system integrated with the rear disc wheel.
That said, the video is actually not unfair, but also does not present anything particularly new on this tech.
My general takeaways are as follows:
Yes, a 3-4% loss in lower gears is nothign to sneeze at. This might be less, because of the effects of smaller chain articulation up front since it always stays in the big ring. Maybe as low as 2%. In any event, this BADLY needs to be properly tested.
Even assuming the 3% loss as a given, use-cases will differ and so will the optimal choice.
1. When I ride in the UK, the number of times I am on a small ring is really tiny - there are just not that many long, steep hills here. I mean, there are some, but it's a 3-5 minute affair when you run into one, and it might happen twice or thrice on a 100 mile loop, and the rest of the ride is in a big ring. So that's like 15 minutes out of 5 hrs or so of riding, or around 5% of the time. Sometimes, the whole ride is in a big ring. And in races on crit circuits, it is invariably 100% of the time in a big ring. For that kind of use case, I think this Classified hub is a good fit, because even the small aero gains from loosing the front mech will on average be worth it. Hence I am very much considering this for the next bike build.
2. In a slighly marginal case like the Classics races, you need to think twice about this, but the ability to shift under full power with no risk of chain drop and then the potential breakaway scenario might weigh in favor of choosing the Classified system over traditional front mech (assuming the team can sort out a spare bike for you in case of a puncture). I can see why a rider like Campernaets, who wins rarely, and basically stakes everything on a breakaway effort, would choose this.
3. If you are racing or riding a lot in the mountains, with long climbs, or are doing really long alpine amateur events, this hub seems like a bad idea. You are spending a lot of time climbing, probably more than 50% of the ride in fact, and a lot of that will be small ring work unless you are Pogacar. Aero gains from loosing the front mech will be miniscule, the weight penalty will also be of concern, and the efficiency loss will weight heavily in favor of having a front mech.
4. For TT or triathlon, I would struggle to find reasons NOT to have this system integrated with the rear disc wheel.
-
CarlosTheJackal
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:56 pm
There are some comments on that video and a link from his webpage that imply that Hambini's guesstimate was conservative and the total loss is nearer 10% ie only 90% efficiency.
I don't think he was negative at all, he gave the facts and stated his opinion based on what he believed. The complexities of a wheel change and the cost make this prohibitive.
The interesting thing for me was the counter torque bar. I had no idea the system needed that and I can see on some bikes where that will be a problem.
I don't think he was negative at all, he gave the facts and stated his opinion based on what he believed. The complexities of a wheel change and the cost make this prohibitive.
The interesting thing for me was the counter torque bar. I had no idea the system needed that and I can see on some bikes where that will be a problem.
If it's truly 10% loss.
I'd think it's still worth it for MTB if you need the range. The suspension design is so much better when it design to be used by a small range of chainring size (for example: 30t to 36t). Even the very simple single pivot design can achieve consistent anti-squat value when you don't have to consider different vertical chain angle caused by 2 very different chainring sizes (like 34,24 front rings double). So there's no turning back to front derailleur for modern mtb from the the suspension design point alone.
Still, do we really need more range than what modern 12 speed 10-50t or 10-52t offer?
I'd think it's still worth it for MTB if you need the range. The suspension design is so much better when it design to be used by a small range of chainring size (for example: 30t to 36t). Even the very simple single pivot design can achieve consistent anti-squat value when you don't have to consider different vertical chain angle caused by 2 very different chainring sizes (like 34,24 front rings double). So there's no turning back to front derailleur for modern mtb from the the suspension design point alone.
Still, do we really need more range than what modern 12 speed 10-50t or 10-52t offer?
Last edited by Hexsense on Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Would be nice it is integrated wirelessly with Shimano shifter or SRAM for this type of price
Again Shimano have play with internal hubs for the longest time and they are sure of the power loss, else it would be in the pro tour by now!! U can see tons of internal hub shimano drive train on consumer bikes in japan...
Again Shimano have play with internal hubs for the longest time and they are sure of the power loss, else it would be in the pro tour by now!! U can see tons of internal hub shimano drive train on consumer bikes in japan...
CampagYOLO wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:12 pmOnce you add in the Powershift kit it's not really any cheaper than the full kit + wheels from Classified. Was hoping that it may be a cheaper alternative but I suppose it's good to have options when it comes to wheels.milanv wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:23 pmNew wheels by HUNT.
https://eu.huntbikewheels.com/pages/cla ... unt-wheels
Without Di2 integration it doesn't interested me, I don' t want to install another shifter on bars.maxima wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:31 pmWould be nice it is integrated wirelessly with Shimano shifter or SRAM for this type of price
Again Shimano have play with internal hubs for the longest time and they are sure of the power loss, else it would be in the pro tour by now!! U can see tons of internal hub shimano drive train on consumer bikes in japan...
CampagYOLO wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:12 pmOnce you add in the Powershift kit it's not really any cheaper than the full kit + wheels from Classified. Was hoping that it may be a cheaper alternative but I suppose it's good to have options when it comes to wheels.milanv wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:23 pmNew wheels by HUNT.
https://eu.huntbikewheels.com/pages/cla ... unt-wheels
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
It is compatible with Shimano Di2
BUT:
Both handlebar unit and shift button are needed for integration with Di2. The shift button itself will be removed, but its cable will be soldered onto the Di2 and connected with the handlebar unit. This process is not part of the standard package (and voids the warranty of the shifter).
(received this answer from Classified)
BUT:
Both handlebar unit and shift button are needed for integration with Di2. The shift button itself will be removed, but its cable will be soldered onto the Di2 and connected with the handlebar unit. This process is not part of the standard package (and voids the warranty of the shifter).
(received this answer from Classified)
