Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Arthur Mayfield]

I’ve seen the charts/catalogs listing 116-120mm OLD Sturmey Archer IGHs, 
but haven’t found one IRL. Soma Fab Shop listed hubs and complete IGH 
(IGGY) wheels, but they’ve been OOS forever, and by email earlier this 
year, they told me that was likely to remain the case for the future. 
Meanwhile, I keep looking and hoping. If anyone finds a hub and isn’t 
snagging it for themselves, I’d appreciate a tip
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 3:12:47 PM UTC-4 J L wrote:

> Strumy Archer makes a 120 OLD version of their X-RF8 8 speed internal hub. 
> It is a modern style hub with a rotary switch rather than the chain 
> actuated gear shift.
>
> On Jun 20, 2023, at 9:50 AM, Arthur Mayfield  wrote:
>
> I don’t know what the rear spacing is on the Quickbeams and Simple One, 
> but my Frank Jones Sr has 120mm track dropouts. Finding a modern 
> manufacture IGH with 120mm OLD has been a lost cause for me (and I build my 
> own wheels). I’m sure if I pored over the possibles long and diligently 
> enough, I’d run across one or a vintage AW, but it simply becomes easier to 
> hop on another bike when I need the gears. I’d like to build a 3 spd wheel 
> for my FJ, though. 
>
>
> One clear advantage of IGH over other multi-gear options on single speed 
> bikes that I haven’t seen mentioned is the ease of riding with “good” 
> fenders. I’ve tried using a flip-flop on my FJ with full coverage, aluminum 
> fenders, and it’s not only a pita to do on the road (as well as 
> time-consuming), but the rear fender could never be set up to fit properly 
> to my standards. An IGH would make that a non-issue, at least until there’s 
> a flat. Removing wheels from bikes rigged with chain tensioners on track 
> dropouts “in the wild” for flats or other maintenance presents yet another 
> nest of problems, with or without fenders. Overall, I’d be happier with a 
> nice IGH. I could even get down to one bike  
>
> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 2:30:13 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> In defense of the old 3 speed igh, the drag, at least for the old SA AW, 
>> has been tested at considerably less than that of much more complex, 
>> multi-epicycle internal gear trains with 7+ gears, and my experience 
>> (considerable with 2 and 3 speed SA hubs, only a little, but some with 
>> modern 7+ gear hubs) bears this out very clearly. 
>>
>> IMO, the simplicity and low drag (and lower weight) of the simpler 
>> multigear hubs makes them preferable, at least to me, to the more complex, 
>> draggier, and heavier ones.
>>
>> I have a QR 17/19 Dingle wheel on my Riv 1999 fixed gear road custom and 
>> switching from the 76" to a 68" headwind gear is very easy, but I noticed 
>> that I downshifted much more often and readily with the 2 speed TC hub (76" 
>> direct and 66" underdrive), helpful when your direction into the wind or 
>> the slope of the terrain changes often. My point is not that you ("all 
>> y'all") should go get a TC -- last made in the 1940s? Mine is 1937 -- but 
>> that igh's do offer some benefits over manual "get off the bike and move 
>> the chain" shifting. 
>>
>> Personally, I perfer the external simplicity of a simple igh over 
>> multiple cogs or rings, and I prefer multiple cogs over multiple rings, 
>> again for simplicity and ease of use. AAYMMAWV.
>>
>> I get back to that downgeared AW Schwinn: 69", 52", 39" which for a 
>> $50-total-expenditure beater including new 36 t chainring + shop 
>> labor (1989) proved to be very versatile indeed.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:32 AM Drew Saunders  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My orange Quickbeam came set up as a "2 speed" with 32-40-chainguard 
>>> chainrings on a 74/110 triple (still has those) plus an 18t freewheel.
>>> I immediately made it a "3 speed" with a 17/19 Dos Eno freewheel. The 
>>> chain is too slack for the 32/17 to work, so only 3 options: 40/17 (99% of 
>>> my riding), 40/19, 32/19.
>>> I later added a 22T freewheel to the flip side of the flip/flop hub, 
>>> which will work with the 32, but not the 40, so I have an extremely 
>>> inconvenient 4-speed.
>>>
>>> I rarely take it out of the 40/17, but the headwinds this morning made 
>>> me wonder if I should have used the 40/19.
>>>
>>> All of that was much cheaper and easier than getting an internally 
>>> geared hub, and if I did go for an IGH, I'd get a modern 7 or 8 speed 
>>> anyway.
>>>
>> -- 
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/822e3dbe-bdb5-4994-8c3f-70d38f1a2c78n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners 

Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[J L]

Strumy Archer makes a 120 OLD version of their X-RF8 8 speed internal hub. It is a modern style hub with a rotary switch rather than the chain actuated gear shift.On Jun 20, 2023, at 9:50 AM, Arthur Mayfield  wrote:I don’t know what the rear spacing is on the Quickbeams and Simple One, but my Frank Jones Sr has 120mm track dropouts. Finding a modern manufacture IGH with 120mm OLD has been a lost cause for me (and I build my own wheels). I’m sure if I pored over the possibles long and diligently enough, I’d run across one or a vintage AW, but it simply becomes easier to hop on another bike when I need the gears. I’d like to build a 3 spd wheel for my FJ, though. One clear advantage of IGH over other multi-gear options on single speed bikes that I haven’t seen mentioned is the ease of riding with “good” fenders. I’ve tried using a flip-flop on my FJ with full coverage, aluminum fenders, and it’s not only a pita to do on the road (as well as time-consuming), but the rear fender could never be set up to fit properly to my standards. An IGH would make that a non-issue, at least until there’s a flat. Removing wheels from bikes rigged with chain tensioners on track dropouts “in the wild” for flats or other maintenance presents yet another nest of problems, with or without fenders. Overall, I’d be happier with a nice IGH. I could even get down to one bike  On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 2:30:13 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote:In defense of the old 3 speed igh, the drag, at least for the old SA AW, has been tested at considerably less than that of much more complex, multi-epicycle internal gear trains with 7+ gears, and my experience (considerable with 2 and 3 speed SA hubs, only a little, but some with modern 7+ gear hubs) bears this out very clearly. IMO, the simplicity and low drag (and lower weight) of the simpler multigear hubs makes them preferable, at least to me, to the more complex, draggier, and heavier ones.I have a QR 17/19 Dingle wheel on my Riv 1999 fixed gear road custom and switching from the 76" to a 68" headwind gear is very easy, but I noticed that I downshifted much more often and readily with the 2 speed TC hub (76" direct and 66" underdrive), helpful when your direction into the wind or the slope of the terrain changes often. My point is not that you ("all y'all") should go get a TC -- last made in the 1940s? Mine is 1937 -- but that igh's do offer some benefits over manual "get off the bike and move the chain" shifting. Personally, I perfer the external simplicity of a simple igh over multiple cogs or rings, and I prefer multiple cogs over multiple rings, again for simplicity and ease of use. AAYMMAWV.I get back to that downgeared AW Schwinn: 69", 52", 39" which for a $50-total-expenditure beater including new 36 t chainring + shop labor (1989) proved to be very versatile indeed.On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:32 AM Drew Saunders  wrote:My orange Quickbeam came set up as a "2 speed" with 32-40-chainguard chainrings on a 74/110 triple (still has those) plus an 18t freewheel.I immediately made it a "3 speed" with a 17/19 Dos Eno freewheel. The chain is too slack for the 32/17 to work, so only 3 options: 40/17 (99% of my riding), 40/19, 32/19.I later added a 22T freewheel to the flip side of the flip/flop hub, which will work with the 32, but not the 40, so I have an extremely inconvenient 4-speed.I rarely take it out of the 40/17, but the headwinds this morning made me wonder if I should have used the 40/19.All of that was much cheaper and easier than getting an internally geared hub, and if I did go for an IGH, I'd get a modern 7 or 8 speed anyway.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/822e3dbe-bdb5-4994-8c3f-70d38f1a2c78n%40googlegroups.com.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3D9B990A-4F59-44DA-BDE7-D088068735F7%40gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Patrick Moore]

Duh, you don't use chain tugs with horizontals, just with track ends, but
you know what I mean: hex nuts and even assiduously tightened wingnuts are
secure under the modestly agressive honking of a 170-lb male.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:24 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:

> BTW, I will add that chain tugs are not at all necessary for secure axle
> placement in long horizontal dropouts or track ends; hex nuts are very
> secure, and I've found that even wingnuts, hand tightened, keep axles in
> place under my preferred high-torque/low rpm pedaling with just sufficient
> effort given to finger tightening.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgv6OuYa0_Y0azS1g%2B0r1pYpXQBcW8u_x7Uz0EOy%3DhY-BA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Patrick Moore]

BTW, I will add that chain tugs are not at all necessary for secure axle
placement in long horizontal dropouts or track ends; hex nuts are very
secure, and I've found that even wingnuts, hand tightened, keep axles in
place under my preferred high-torque/low rpm pedaling with just sufficient
effort given to finger tightening.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:22 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:

> SA still makes 3-speed hubs with OL spacing to fit a 120 mm OL frame; at
> least the chart shows a model for 116 mm OL spacing which with the proper
> anti-rotation washers between locknuts and inside face of dropouts would
> fit the QB perfectly.
>
>
> https://www.sturmey-archer.com/files/catalog/files/319/SPECIFICATIONS%20-%20IGH%20TS%20&%20QS.pdf
>
> My IGH hubs are variously spaced for variously spaced frames, 114 MM TO
> 130 MM, but with a bit of washer fettling I get a 114 mm OL TF with 145 mm
> axle meant for thin plate dropouts into a 120 mm OL Riv custom road fixed
> frame with fat modern forged dropouts with ample room for hex bolts. I
> can't use the uber-cool SA proprietary wingnuts, but the axle fits securely
> and worry-free.
>
> I started to adapt my S3X with 130 mm OL spacing and correspondingly long
> axle to 120 mm but stopped mid-project; but it's not hard to remove the
> spacers which make up most of the difference between 114 and 130 mm, and
> cut the axle as -- and if -- needed. Pull-chain shifting technology is
> very, very forgiving and adaptable.
>
> And, as another aside, for me, 3 speeds is perfect for IGHs; more than
> that and I want a derailleur.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:50 AM Arthur Mayfield 
> wrote:
>
>> I don’t know what the rear spacing is on the Quickbeams and Simple One,
>> but my Frank Jones Sr has 120mm track dropouts. Finding a modern
>> manufacture IGH with 120mm OLD has been a lost cause for me (and I build my
>> own wheels). I’m sure if I pored over the possibles long and diligently
>> enough, I’d run across one or a vintage AW, but it simply becomes easier to
>> hop on another bike when I need the gears. I’d like to build a 3 spd wheel
>> for my FJ, though.
>>
>> One clear advantage of IGH over other multi-gear options on single speed
>> bikes that I haven’t seen mentioned is the ease of riding with “good”
>> fenders. I’ve tried using a flip-flop on my FJ with full coverage, aluminum
>> fenders, and it’s not only a pita to do on the road (as well as
>> time-consuming), but the rear fender could never be set up to fit properly
>> to my standards. An IGH would make that a non-issue, at least until there’s
>> a flat. Removing wheels from bikes rigged with chain tensioners on track
>> dropouts “in the wild” for flats or other maintenance presents yet another
>> nest of problems, with or without fenders. Overall, I’d be happier with a
>> nice IGH. I could even get down to one bike 
>>
>> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 2:30:13 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> In defense of the old 3 speed igh, the drag, at least for the old SA AW,
>>> has been tested at considerably less than that of much more complex,
>>> multi-epicycle internal gear trains with 7+ gears, and my experience
>>> (considerable with 2 and 3 speed SA hubs, only a little, but some with
>>> modern 7+ gear hubs) bears this out very clearly.
>>>
>>> IMO, the simplicity and low drag (and lower weight) of the simpler
>>> multigear hubs makes them preferable, at least to me, to the more complex,
>>> draggier, and heavier ones.
>>>
>>> I have a QR 17/19 Dingle wheel on my Riv 1999 fixed gear road custom and
>>> switching from the 76" to a 68" headwind gear is very easy, but I noticed
>>> that I downshifted much more often and readily with the 2 speed TC hub (76"
>>> direct and 66" underdrive), helpful when your direction into the wind or
>>> the slope of the terrain changes often. My point is not that you ("all
>>> y'all") should go get a TC -- last made in the 1940s? Mine is 1937 -- but
>>> that igh's do offer some benefits over manual "get off the bike and move
>>> the chain" shifting.
>>>
>>> Personally, I perfer the external simplicity of a simple igh over
>>> multiple cogs or rings, and I prefer multiple cogs over multiple rings,
>>> again for simplicity and ease of use. AAYMMAWV.
>>>
>>> I get back to that downgeared AW Schwinn: 69", 52", 39" which for a
>>> $50-total-expenditure beater including new 36 t chainring + shop
>>> labor (1989) proved to be very versatile indeed.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:32 AM Drew Saunders 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 My orange Quickbeam came set up as a "2 speed" with 32-40-chainguard
 chainrings on a 74/110 triple (still has those) plus an 18t freewheel.
 I immediately made it a "3 speed" with a 17/19 Dos Eno freewheel. The
 chain is too slack for the 32/17 to work, so only 3 options: 40/17 (99% of
 my riding), 40/19, 32/19.
 I later added a 22T freewheel to the flip side of the flip/flop hub,
 which will work with the 32, but not the 40, so I have an 

Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Patrick Moore]

SA still makes 3-speed hubs with OL spacing to fit a 120 mm OL frame; at
least the chart shows a model for 116 mm OL spacing which with the proper
anti-rotation washers between locknuts and inside face of dropouts would
fit the QB perfectly.

https://www.sturmey-archer.com/files/catalog/files/319/SPECIFICATIONS%20-%20IGH%20TS%20&%20QS.pdf

My IGH hubs are variously spaced for variously spaced frames, 114 MM TO 130
MM, but with a bit of washer fettling I get a 114 mm OL TF with 145 mm axle
meant for thin plate dropouts into a 120 mm OL Riv custom road fixed frame
with fat modern forged dropouts with ample room for hex bolts. I can't use
the uber-cool SA proprietary wingnuts, but the axle fits securely and
worry-free.

I started to adapt my S3X with 130 mm OL spacing and correspondingly long
axle to 120 mm but stopped mid-project; but it's not hard to remove the
spacers which make up most of the difference between 114 and 130 mm, and
cut the axle as -- and if -- needed. Pull-chain shifting technology is
very, very forgiving and adaptable.

And, as another aside, for me, 3 speeds is perfect for IGHs; more than that
and I want a derailleur.



On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:50 AM Arthur Mayfield 
wrote:

> I don’t know what the rear spacing is on the Quickbeams and Simple One,
> but my Frank Jones Sr has 120mm track dropouts. Finding a modern
> manufacture IGH with 120mm OLD has been a lost cause for me (and I build my
> own wheels). I’m sure if I pored over the possibles long and diligently
> enough, I’d run across one or a vintage AW, but it simply becomes easier to
> hop on another bike when I need the gears. I’d like to build a 3 spd wheel
> for my FJ, though.
>
> One clear advantage of IGH over other multi-gear options on single speed
> bikes that I haven’t seen mentioned is the ease of riding with “good”
> fenders. I’ve tried using a flip-flop on my FJ with full coverage, aluminum
> fenders, and it’s not only a pita to do on the road (as well as
> time-consuming), but the rear fender could never be set up to fit properly
> to my standards. An IGH would make that a non-issue, at least until there’s
> a flat. Removing wheels from bikes rigged with chain tensioners on track
> dropouts “in the wild” for flats or other maintenance presents yet another
> nest of problems, with or without fenders. Overall, I’d be happier with a
> nice IGH. I could even get down to one bike 
>
> On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 2:30:13 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> In defense of the old 3 speed igh, the drag, at least for the old SA AW,
>> has been tested at considerably less than that of much more complex,
>> multi-epicycle internal gear trains with 7+ gears, and my experience
>> (considerable with 2 and 3 speed SA hubs, only a little, but some with
>> modern 7+ gear hubs) bears this out very clearly.
>>
>> IMO, the simplicity and low drag (and lower weight) of the simpler
>> multigear hubs makes them preferable, at least to me, to the more complex,
>> draggier, and heavier ones.
>>
>> I have a QR 17/19 Dingle wheel on my Riv 1999 fixed gear road custom and
>> switching from the 76" to a 68" headwind gear is very easy, but I noticed
>> that I downshifted much more often and readily with the 2 speed TC hub (76"
>> direct and 66" underdrive), helpful when your direction into the wind or
>> the slope of the terrain changes often. My point is not that you ("all
>> y'all") should go get a TC -- last made in the 1940s? Mine is 1937 -- but
>> that igh's do offer some benefits over manual "get off the bike and move
>> the chain" shifting.
>>
>> Personally, I perfer the external simplicity of a simple igh over
>> multiple cogs or rings, and I prefer multiple cogs over multiple rings,
>> again for simplicity and ease of use. AAYMMAWV.
>>
>> I get back to that downgeared AW Schwinn: 69", 52", 39" which for a
>> $50-total-expenditure beater including new 36 t chainring + shop
>> labor (1989) proved to be very versatile indeed.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:32 AM Drew Saunders 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My orange Quickbeam came set up as a "2 speed" with 32-40-chainguard
>>> chainrings on a 74/110 triple (still has those) plus an 18t freewheel.
>>> I immediately made it a "3 speed" with a 17/19 Dos Eno freewheel. The
>>> chain is too slack for the 32/17 to work, so only 3 options: 40/17 (99% of
>>> my riding), 40/19, 32/19.
>>> I later added a 22T freewheel to the flip side of the flip/flop hub,
>>> which will work with the 32, but not the 40, so I have an extremely
>>> inconvenient 4-speed.
>>>
>>> I rarely take it out of the 40/17, but the headwinds this morning made
>>> me wonder if I should have used the 40/19.
>>>
>>> All of that was much cheaper and easier than getting an internally
>>> geared hub, and if I did go for an IGH, I'd get a modern 7 or 8 speed
>>> anyway.
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails 

Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Arthur Mayfield]

I don’t know what the rear spacing is on the Quickbeams and Simple One, but 
my Frank Jones Sr has 120mm track dropouts. Finding a modern manufacture 
IGH with 120mm OLD has been a lost cause for me (and I build my own 
wheels). I’m sure if I pored over the possibles long and diligently enough, 
I’d run across one or a vintage AW, but it simply becomes easier to hop on 
another bike when I need the gears. I’d like to build a 3 spd wheel for my 
FJ, though. 

One clear advantage of IGH over other multi-gear options on single speed 
bikes that I haven’t seen mentioned is the ease of riding with “good” 
fenders. I’ve tried using a flip-flop on my FJ with full coverage, aluminum 
fenders, and it’s not only a pita to do on the road (as well as 
time-consuming), but the rear fender could never be set up to fit properly 
to my standards. An IGH would make that a non-issue, at least until there’s 
a flat. Removing wheels from bikes rigged with chain tensioners on track 
dropouts “in the wild” for flats or other maintenance presents yet another 
nest of problems, with or without fenders. Overall, I’d be happier with a 
nice IGH. I could even get down to one bike  

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 2:30:13 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote:

> In defense of the old 3 speed igh, the drag, at least for the old SA AW, 
> has been tested at considerably less than that of much more complex, 
> multi-epicycle internal gear trains with 7+ gears, and my experience 
> (considerable with 2 and 3 speed SA hubs, only a little, but some with 
> modern 7+ gear hubs) bears this out very clearly. 
>
> IMO, the simplicity and low drag (and lower weight) of the simpler 
> multigear hubs makes them preferable, at least to me, to the more complex, 
> draggier, and heavier ones.
>
> I have a QR 17/19 Dingle wheel on my Riv 1999 fixed gear road custom and 
> switching from the 76" to a 68" headwind gear is very easy, but I noticed 
> that I downshifted much more often and readily with the 2 speed TC hub (76" 
> direct and 66" underdrive), helpful when your direction into the wind or 
> the slope of the terrain changes often. My point is not that you ("all 
> y'all") should go get a TC -- last made in the 1940s? Mine is 1937 -- but 
> that igh's do offer some benefits over manual "get off the bike and move 
> the chain" shifting. 
>
> Personally, I perfer the external simplicity of a simple igh over multiple 
> cogs or rings, and I prefer multiple cogs over multiple rings, again for 
> simplicity and ease of use. AAYMMAWV.
>
> I get back to that downgeared AW Schwinn: 69", 52", 39" which for a 
> $50-total-expenditure beater including new 36 t chainring + shop 
> labor (1989) proved to be very versatile indeed.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:32 AM Drew Saunders  
> wrote:
>
>> My orange Quickbeam came set up as a "2 speed" with 32-40-chainguard 
>> chainrings on a 74/110 triple (still has those) plus an 18t freewheel.
>> I immediately made it a "3 speed" with a 17/19 Dos Eno freewheel. The 
>> chain is too slack for the 32/17 to work, so only 3 options: 40/17 (99% of 
>> my riding), 40/19, 32/19.
>> I later added a 22T freewheel to the flip side of the flip/flop hub, 
>> which will work with the 32, but not the 40, so I have an extremely 
>> inconvenient 4-speed.
>>
>> I rarely take it out of the 40/17, but the headwinds this morning made me 
>> wonder if I should have used the 40/19.
>>
>> All of that was much cheaper and easier than getting an internally geared 
>> hub, and if I did go for an IGH, I'd get a modern 7 or 8 speed anyway.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/822e3dbe-bdb5-4994-8c3f-70d38f1a2c78n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Patrick Moore]

In defense of the old 3 speed igh, the drag, at least for the old SA AW,
has been tested at considerably less than that of much more complex,
multi-epicycle internal gear trains with 7+ gears, and my experience
(considerable with 2 and 3 speed SA hubs, only a little, but some with
modern 7+ gear hubs) bears this out very clearly.

IMO, the simplicity and low drag (and lower weight) of the simpler
multigear hubs makes them preferable, at least to me, to the more complex,
draggier, and heavier ones.

I have a QR 17/19 Dingle wheel on my Riv 1999 fixed gear road custom and
switching from the 76" to a 68" headwind gear is very easy, but I noticed
that I downshifted much more often and readily with the 2 speed TC hub (76"
direct and 66" underdrive), helpful when your direction into the wind or
the slope of the terrain changes often. My point is not that you ("all
y'all") should go get a TC -- last made in the 1940s? Mine is 1937 -- but
that igh's do offer some benefits over manual "get off the bike and move
the chain" shifting.

Personally, I perfer the external simplicity of a simple igh over multiple
cogs or rings, and I prefer multiple cogs over multiple rings, again for
simplicity and ease of use. AAYMMAWV.

I get back to that downgeared AW Schwinn: 69", 52", 39" which for a
$50-total-expenditure beater including new 36 t chainring + shop
labor (1989) proved to be very versatile indeed.


On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:32 AM Drew Saunders 
wrote:

> My orange Quickbeam came set up as a "2 speed" with 32-40-chainguard
> chainrings on a 74/110 triple (still has those) plus an 18t freewheel.
> I immediately made it a "3 speed" with a 17/19 Dos Eno freewheel. The
> chain is too slack for the 32/17 to work, so only 3 options: 40/17 (99% of
> my riding), 40/19, 32/19.
> I later added a 22T freewheel to the flip side of the flip/flop hub, which
> will work with the 32, but not the 40, so I have an extremely inconvenient
> 4-speed.
>
> I rarely take it out of the 40/17, but the headwinds this morning made me
> wonder if I should have used the 40/19.
>
> All of that was much cheaper and easier than getting an internally geared
> hub, and if I did go for an IGH, I'd get a modern 7 or 8 speed anyway.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgvzYLR4Mt9%3DZAy39X7Jf6gqL%3DasonBRdvNSjwXRH5Qkhg%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Drew Saunders]

My orange Quickbeam came set up as a "2 speed" with 32-40-chainguard 
chainrings on a 74/110 triple (still has those) plus an 18t freewheel.
I immediately made it a "3 speed" with a 17/19 Dos Eno freewheel. The chain 
is too slack for the 32/17 to work, so only 3 options: 40/17 (99% of my 
riding), 40/19, 32/19.
I later added a 22T freewheel to the flip side of the flip/flop hub, which 
will work with the 32, but not the 40, so I have an extremely inconvenient 
4-speed.

I rarely take it out of the 40/17, but the headwinds this morning made me 
wonder if I should have used the 40/19.

All of that was much cheaper and easier than getting an internally geared 
hub, and if I did go for an IGH, I'd get a modern 7 or 8 speed anyway.

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:57:29 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> There have been threads recently about 2- and 3-speeding Quickbeams and 
> SimpleOnes using multiple chainrings, front derailleur, and rear chain 
> takeup device. I'm curious why people don't use Sturmey Archer AWs? The AW 
> has (per late '90s study by the Human Powered Vehicle Association) as 
> little drag as a clean, well set up derailleur system, and an IGH preserves 
> the simplicity and clean aesthetic of a ss or fixed gear, barring a small 
> cable and shift mechanism.
>
> Pray, why the choice of multiple rings, fd, and rear tensioner? Is it the 
> big jumps in the AW gearing?
>
> Long ago (1990 IIRC) I set up a beater Schwinn 3 speed as a poor man's 
> mountain bike (my companion's Diamond Back was recent with only 6 rear 
> cogs) with a 36 to ring to give, with the 18 t AW cog, 69", 52", and 39" 
> gears, and it did good service on 1 well-remembered ride on very hilly jeep 
> tracks -- and an aside: the Ashtabula crank was a miracle of cheap and 
> durable manufacturing compared to the cottered system.
>
> But 69"-52"-39" is a very useful gear spread.
>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/044e7a57-a8d9-43ca-aee4-fdc770706178n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Jim M.]

My QB came with a double chainring and flip flop hub, so that was far 
easier for multi-speeding than a new S-A hub and wheel would have been. And 
I know it's only about a pound difference between an AW and a Shimano 
flip-flop hub, but I'm weenie enough not to want that extra weight. But if 
I had an AW wheel, I certainly would have tried it.

jim m
walnut creek

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:47:05 PM UTC-7 mr.wa...@gmail.com wrote:

> I did like my little White Industries Dos ENO freewheel when I was 
> commuting in Santa Fe. Bigger cog for uphill going to work, and little one 
> for a fast ride home. I just ran across it in a box of parts and may need 
> to find a home for it. Couldn't change while moving but it worked for me at 
> that time.
>
>
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 2:06:02 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> Very good point, and one I had not considered. Yes, much easier to add 
>> rings and fd and tensioner than an IGH, and even simpler than adding 3 rear 
>> cogs since that would in most cases also require a wheel build (unless you 
>> find a rare 3-speed freewheel and respace and redish your rear wheel.
>>
>> Patrick Moore, very acutely realizing the benefit of 1 or 2 lower gears 
>> in ABQ, NM.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 3:03 PM Joe Bernard  wrote:
>>
>>> I think what happens is people like the bike, then gradually realize one 
>>> or two lower gears might be nice. For most of us adding a derailer and 
>>> tensioner is a simpler path than having the rear wheel rebuilt (folks who 
>>> build their own wheels can disregard). 
>>>
>>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:57:29 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 There have been threads recently about 2- and 3-speeding Quickbeams and 
 SimpleOnes using multiple chainrings, front derailleur, and rear chain 
 takeup device. I'm curious why people don't use Sturmey Archer AWs? The AW 
 has (per late '90s study by the Human Powered Vehicle Association) as 
 little drag as a clean, well set up derailleur system, and an IGH 
 preserves 
 the simplicity and clean aesthetic of a ss or fixed gear, barring a small 
 cable and shift mechanism.

 Pray, why the choice of multiple rings, fd, and rear tensioner? Is it 
 the big jumps in the AW gearing?

 Long ago (1990 IIRC) I set up a beater Schwinn 3 speed as a poor man's 
 mountain bike (my companion's Diamond Back was recent with only 6 rear 
 cogs) with a 36 to ring to give, with the 18 t AW cog, 69", 52", and 39" 
 gears, and it did good service on 1 well-remembered ride on very hilly 
 jeep 
 tracks -- and an aside: the Ashtabula crank was a miracle of cheap and 
 durable manufacturing compared to the cottered system.

 But 69"-52"-39" is a very useful gear spread.

 -- 

 ---
 Patrick Moore
 Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

 -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8c043e8e-a7df-4d2a-8e4e-d94d2939d1cdn%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> ---
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/70a0c999-f387-42fd-bc86-bc3e42be8717n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Jamie Hascall]

I did like my little White Industries Dos ENO freewheel when I was 
commuting in Santa Fe. Bigger cog for uphill going to work, and little one 
for a fast ride home. I just ran across it in a box of parts and may need 
to find a home for it. Couldn't change while moving but it worked for me at 
that time.


On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 2:06:02 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Very good point, and one I had not considered. Yes, much easier to add 
> rings and fd and tensioner than an IGH, and even simpler than adding 3 rear 
> cogs since that would in most cases also require a wheel build (unless you 
> find a rare 3-speed freewheel and respace and redish your rear wheel.
>
> Patrick Moore, very acutely realizing the benefit of 1 or 2 lower gears in 
> ABQ, NM.
>
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 3:03 PM Joe Bernard  wrote:
>
>> I think what happens is people like the bike, then gradually realize one 
>> or two lower gears might be nice. For most of us adding a derailer and 
>> tensioner is a simpler path than having the rear wheel rebuilt (folks who 
>> build their own wheels can disregard). 
>>
>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:57:29 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> There have been threads recently about 2- and 3-speeding Quickbeams and 
>>> SimpleOnes using multiple chainrings, front derailleur, and rear chain 
>>> takeup device. I'm curious why people don't use Sturmey Archer AWs? The AW 
>>> has (per late '90s study by the Human Powered Vehicle Association) as 
>>> little drag as a clean, well set up derailleur system, and an IGH preserves 
>>> the simplicity and clean aesthetic of a ss or fixed gear, barring a small 
>>> cable and shift mechanism.
>>>
>>> Pray, why the choice of multiple rings, fd, and rear tensioner? Is it 
>>> the big jumps in the AW gearing?
>>>
>>> Long ago (1990 IIRC) I set up a beater Schwinn 3 speed as a poor man's 
>>> mountain bike (my companion's Diamond Back was recent with only 6 rear 
>>> cogs) with a 36 to ring to give, with the 18 t AW cog, 69", 52", and 39" 
>>> gears, and it did good service on 1 well-remembered ride on very hilly jeep 
>>> tracks -- and an aside: the Ashtabula crank was a miracle of cheap and 
>>> durable manufacturing compared to the cottered system.
>>>
>>> But 69"-52"-39" is a very useful gear spread.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Patrick Moore
>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>>
>>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8c043e8e-a7df-4d2a-8e4e-d94d2939d1cdn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/50977bbe-fe6d-4aa9-8b22-cb1a7f0d5fe9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Patrick Moore]

Very good point, and one I had not considered. Yes, much easier to add
rings and fd and tensioner than an IGH, and even simpler than adding 3 rear
cogs since that would in most cases also require a wheel build (unless you
find a rare 3-speed freewheel and respace and redish your rear wheel.

Patrick Moore, very acutely realizing the benefit of 1 or 2 lower gears in
ABQ, NM.

On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 3:03 PM Joe Bernard  wrote:

> I think what happens is people like the bike, then gradually realize one
> or two lower gears might be nice. For most of us adding a derailer and
> tensioner is a simpler path than having the rear wheel rebuilt (folks who
> build their own wheels can disregard).
>
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:57:29 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> There have been threads recently about 2- and 3-speeding Quickbeams and
>> SimpleOnes using multiple chainrings, front derailleur, and rear chain
>> takeup device. I'm curious why people don't use Sturmey Archer AWs? The AW
>> has (per late '90s study by the Human Powered Vehicle Association) as
>> little drag as a clean, well set up derailleur system, and an IGH preserves
>> the simplicity and clean aesthetic of a ss or fixed gear, barring a small
>> cable and shift mechanism.
>>
>> Pray, why the choice of multiple rings, fd, and rear tensioner? Is it the
>> big jumps in the AW gearing?
>>
>> Long ago (1990 IIRC) I set up a beater Schwinn 3 speed as a poor man's
>> mountain bike (my companion's Diamond Back was recent with only 6 rear
>> cogs) with a 36 to ring to give, with the 18 t AW cog, 69", 52", and 39"
>> gears, and it did good service on 1 well-remembered ride on very hilly jeep
>> tracks -- and an aside: the Ashtabula crank was a miracle of cheap and
>> durable manufacturing compared to the cottered system.
>>
>> But 69"-52"-39" is a very useful gear spread.
>>
>> --
>>
>> ---
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8c043e8e-a7df-4d2a-8e4e-d94d2939d1cdn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 

---
Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgvb8%3DCuh8LyL6rdi%2BCRz5gE3RF0KWy1fAKkH2GLSJA50Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: 3-speeding Quickbeams and SimpleOnes

[Joe Bernard]

I think what happens is people like the bike, then gradually realize one or 
two lower gears might be nice. For most of us adding a derailer and 
tensioner is a simpler path than having the rear wheel rebuilt (folks who 
build their own wheels can disregard). 

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 1:57:29 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote:

> There have been threads recently about 2- and 3-speeding Quickbeams and 
> SimpleOnes using multiple chainrings, front derailleur, and rear chain 
> takeup device. I'm curious why people don't use Sturmey Archer AWs? The AW 
> has (per late '90s study by the Human Powered Vehicle Association) as 
> little drag as a clean, well set up derailleur system, and an IGH preserves 
> the simplicity and clean aesthetic of a ss or fixed gear, barring a small 
> cable and shift mechanism.
>
> Pray, why the choice of multiple rings, fd, and rear tensioner? Is it the 
> big jumps in the AW gearing?
>
> Long ago (1990 IIRC) I set up a beater Schwinn 3 speed as a poor man's 
> mountain bike (my companion's Diamond Back was recent with only 6 rear 
> cogs) with a 36 to ring to give, with the 18 t AW cog, 69", 52", and 39" 
> gears, and it did good service on 1 well-remembered ride on very hilly jeep 
> tracks -- and an aside: the Ashtabula crank was a miracle of cheap and 
> durable manufacturing compared to the cottered system.
>
> But 69"-52"-39" is a very useful gear spread.
>
> -- 
>
> ---
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/8c043e8e-a7df-4d2a-8e4e-d94d2939d1cdn%40googlegroups.com.