Bike Report 1

Bryan (who rode across Canada last year and kindly helped me with some of my planning stuff) has asked about how my bike is doing and commented that I hadn’t said anything about it so far. Well, there’s not much to report, everything’s been fine…I shouldn’t have written that of course…Thanks Bryan for all the mechanicals coming my way over the next few days… :)

For the record:

The tyres are holding up well. I’ve not needed to mend any holes. The rear might even get to 6,400km without a swap around. (I’ve a spare waiting in Montreal). I’m also carrying a spare so can just swap the rear only if the tread goes. I think the front could do the whole trip. I don’t think these tyres would last as long as M+, but they roll a whole lot better!

The Ergon grips are excellent. I’ve no hand issues, despite not using bar ends. I’m in the habit of practicing regular hand (and shoulder and feet) exercises on the bike to avoid problems, though.

The Brooks saddle is good but not perfect. It’s comfortable enough on a daily basis to avoid any “saddle issues” (I’ve no chafing or soreness. My excellent padded Assos shorts and liberal use of “Chamois Creme” also contribute significantly to this), but it’s still “a bit of a trial” sitting in the saddle all day on this bike with it’s more upright position. After about 80km, I need to relieve pressure every couple of km by standing for a minute or so. Hence my comment before about wishing to avoid 140km+ days. My legs and fitness could cope with it pretty easily, but my arse (and willpower and sense of humour) would struggle.

(I might want to do a bit more work on my saddle comfort before another long trip. I’ve got a Selle An-Atomica to try out and maybe the Brooks B17 Narrow might be a better shape for me…).

The transmission is fine, I’ve just moved the eccentric BB once so far to take up chain slack. It’s probably due other tweak soon. I’ve wiped and oiled the chain a grand total of one time, so far! I’m changing the chain (and reversing sprocket and chainring) in Montreal for essentially brand new transmission. I reckon the chain could do the whole trip if needed, though. I could do the Rohloff service anytime from now, but may leave it until Montreal, as well.

I’ve got a very slight amount of bearing play in the right SPD pedal. Should be OK, but monitoring it. Bottom bracket is fine.

I broke my Cateye cycling computer mount on about day 3! (The bike fell and took out the mount on a bench). The computer is still working and has been kept attached to the mount with various elastic band arrangements. My ingenuity knows no bounds! My current “best solution” is a little ponytail fabric elastic band. I’ve found a couple of these on the floor. They work really well!

First Rohloff Oil Change

The Rohloff Speedhub on the Raven Nomad requires an oil change every 5,000 km to keep it running smoothly. Conveniently, I've just passed that mark before I go to Canada. So today I did my first Rohloff oil change.

Rohloff Oil Change Kit: Speedhub Oil, Cleaning Oil, Syringe and Drain Plug

It's quite an easy task, but looks a bit strange on the first look as the Rohloff Oil Change Kit contains a great big syringe! Is this bike maintenance or a medical procedure I'm about to perform on the Rohloff?

Ok, so it's a tiny bit late...

The first step is to use the Rohloff Cleaning Oil to help remove the existing oil from the hub. Draw the contents of the blue labelled bottle into the syringe. Then, after removing the small drain plug on the hub, connect the syringe and squirt the contents inside! (Then draw some air back out through the syringe to equalise the pressure).

Drawing the old oil from the hub before adding the clean stuff

Refit the drain plug and turn the cranks for a few minutes in gears 3 and 5. (This engages all the hub's planetary gears and ensures the Rohloff Cleaning Oil gets in all the nooks and crannies). Reconnect the syringe and leave with the syringe at the bottom. After 15 minutes draw the old oil out of the hub. Return the contents to the Cleaning Oil bottle for safe disposal.

Fill the syringe with about 15-20ml of clean Rohloff Speedhub Oil. Add this to the hub (then equalise the pressure again) and fit the new drain plug. Job done.

Continue riding, with a near maintenance free transmission system, for a further 5,000 km...

Two weeks to go and some bicycle maintenance

Well, I've only got two weeks to go before I depart for Canada! Everything has been progressing nicely and I'm just about ready to go! In fact, these next two weeks just waiting around are going to be quite hard. I'm really excited about the trip, but a bit scared as well...

New Components for the Nomad...

One of my final tasks is to get the bike ready for 9,000 km of riding over the next three months. As a precaution, most of the components that will wear out or eventually break are being replaced for new ones. I've done just over 5,000 km on the Nomad since new and all the current components still have plenty of life left in them, so they will be reused at a later date.

Nomad undergoing a transmission rebuild

I decided to replace the following:

• Bottom Bracket
• Chainring
• Sprocket (swapped for a 17T sprocket for slightly lower gearing)
• Chain
• Brake Pads
• Brake Cables
• Rohloff gear cables
• Tyres
• Pedals (precautionary, one side on my right SPD has a click)

Shiny new transmission. Nice!

A short test ride later and everything's sweet! Just an oil change to perform on the Rohloff Hub and that's about it.

Initial Review: Click-Stand Max

I used my Click-Stand® Max for the first time this weekend. I was impressed with the product's functionality, ease of use and the simplicity of it's design.

Click-Stand Max - Portable stand for a loaded touring bike

A loaded touring bike is often very heavy and especially cumbersome when stationary. It is certainly beneficial to be able to keep the bike upright and stable while you load and unload it. A suitable wall or fence is not always conveniently available to prop the bike against, so usually some sort of kickstand (propstand) is used.

Traditional kickstands generally have a poor reputation. They normally attach to the bike's chainstays and the combination of a usually lightweight arm (or arms) and the low positioning below the bike's centre of gravity leaves the bike vulnerable to toppling, especially when heavily loaded. Sometimes chainstays are even damaged when using a kickstand, either from the clamping mechanism, the forces going through the kickstand while it's holding up the bike or as a result of the bike toppling over.

Four piece folding Click-Stand

Some frame manufacturers don't like kickstands very much because of the potential for damaging the frame, even through apparent normal use. Thorn, perhaps deliberately, don't provide a kickstand fixing plate between the chainstays of their bikes and they specifically state the frame's warranty is invalidated if you use certain kickstand models! (E.g. Pletscher ESGE KS11 Twin-Leg Propstand). This was enough incentive for me to look around for something different.

The Click-Stand is a clever bit of 'blue sky' thinking that solves the short-comings of a traditional kickstand. It is made of lightweight holllow aluminium tubing, very similar to that used in modern folding tent-poles and comes in either 4 or 5 sections. The sections are connected with an elastic cord which allows the Click-Stand to fold and unfold very neatly. The top of the Click-Stand has a U-shaped plastic attachment which supports the bike underneath the top-tube.

Closeup of U-shaped Click-Stand support

Click-Stands come in various tube widths depending on the application. I've gone for the heavy-duty Click-Stand Max which is suitable for loaded touring bikes and tandems. It is made from 11mm (.433") diameter Easton tubing. My Click-Stand weighs 125g which is significantly lighter than a traditional kickstand.

Each Click-Stand is custom sized. You specify at the time of order your bike's vertical standing height at the top-tube/seat-tube interface and the top-tube diameter. It folds up to about 20-25cm and two optional brackets are available to store it, either by the side of a water-bottle holder or inline.

Brake-Band used to pull the brake lever and lock the wheel

The secret of the Click-Stand's design is the Brake-Bands® that are supplied with the product. These strong elastic bands slip over the handlebar ends and are used to engage both brakes. This locks both wheels and when the Click-Stand is propped under the bike's top-tube, a very stable tripod is created. The Click-Stand attachment point also benefits from being above the bike's centre of gravity. This helps immensely with stability. It's simple physics.

So how does it perform in practice? Pretty well actually...

Conveniently folded and stored on the rear rack

Once the Click-Stand is engaged, the bike is remarkably stable. It can't be rocked or moved by pushing the bike in the direction of the Click-Stand and it's almost impossible for it to topple over, even if the front wheel swings around. It's also easily stable enough to load and unload panniers one at a time.

Saying that, the Click-Stand is not as easy as a traditional kickstand to use. You can't just get off the bike and flick the stand. I deploy the Click-Stand by first putting the bike in position and then Brake-Band both levers (the bands live close at hand attached to my handlebars). I unfold the Click-Stand (strapped to the top of my rack) and prop it under the Nomad's top-tube, leaning it about 30cm away from the bike (either side can be used).

Click-Stand - A simple and effective product

The Click-Stand works best on hard surfaces. For softer surfaces like mud and grass, the Click-Stand might dig into the ground and this could pose a problem (as it would a traditional one-legged kickstand, only more so). You could put a stone underneath the Click-Stand to prevent this. I think I'm just going to carry a small plastic bottle cap.

The only potential downside I can envisage is if you badly position the Click-Stand or the Click-Stand is accidently knocked, resulting in the (heavy touring) bike falling on top of it. Since it is semi-captive underneath the bike's top-tube, it could well get bent or crushed in the fall as the lightweight tubing is only really strong in one direction.

In summary, I like the Click-Stand®. It's a simple and effective product. It's keenly priced too. If you're in the market for a kickstand for your touring bike, I recommend you add the Click-Stand Max to your shortlist.

It's Harder Riding a Touring Bike

Before purchasing the Raven Nomad, I'd previously only ridden light-weight racing bikes. On my Seven Axiom Ti I have years of speed averages around the 27-30 km/h mark. I was a bit shocked when I rode the Nomad for the first few times and could only manage 22-23 km/h!

This average speed reduction is due to a number of factors including an increase in bicycle mass, a more upright riding position and increased rolling resistance from running lower pressured tyres.

I've yet to ride the Nomad in full touring trim, as I'm still researching and purchasing equipment, but I wondered how much more average speed I would lose when the Nomad was loaded up with panniers and 24 kg of luggage? I thought I'd do some maths...

The Equations

There are two major components of resistance to overcome when riding a bicycle. One is air resistance and the other is road resistance (a combination of friction and gravity). The power (in Watts) required to overcome these resistances can be represented approximately as the sum of equations (1) & (2) below:

       P_air = ½ρ(v_c+v_wind)²C_wA_fv_c   (1)

where ρ = Air density = 1.293 kg/m³, v_c = speed of cyclist (m/s), v_wind = wind speed (m/s), C_w = Drag Coefficient, A_f = frontal area of bike and cyclist (m²)

       P_road = gmv_c(C_r+s)          (2)

where g = gravity = 9.81 m/s², m = mass of cyclist and bike (kg), v_c = speed of cyclist (m/s), Cr = Combined Frictional Coefficient (mostly tyres, but also chain, hubs etc.), s = grade (slope) (E.g. 8% = 0.08)

The Assumptions

I've made some assumptions for the constants C_w A_f and C_r based on information available here. I weigh about 72 kg in my cycling kit. Mass below is for the bike and rider combined.

Bicycle	Mass (kg)	Cw (-)	Af (m2)	Cr (-)
Seven Axiom Ti	81.5	0.9	0.45	0.003
Raven Nomad (Unloaded)	88	1.0	0.60	0.007
Raven Nomad (Loaded)	112	1.0	0.70	0.007

I've also made the assumption that I have a sustainable upper power output of around 230 Watts. I don't own a power meter, but I've reached this figure based on some test numbers I've calculated whereby I matched power output to speeds and conditions I was familiar with for both the Seven and the Nomad (unloaded).

Cycling along the flat

In the case of cycling along the flat with no headwind, grade (s) and V_wind are both 0. From the two power figures it can be seen that much more power is required to combat air resistance than road resistance. Speeds for a power output of around 230 Watts range from 33 km/h (9.3 m/s) for the Seven, down to 26 km/h (7.3 m/s) for the loaded Nomad.

Bicycle	Pair (W)	Proad (W)	vwind (m/s)	grade (m/m)	vc (m/s)	kmhc (km/h)	Diffseven (%)
Seven	207	22	0	0	9.3	33.3
Nomad (U)	183	47	0	0	7.8	28.0	0.84
Nomad (L)	174	56	0	0	7.3	26.2	0.79

Cycling up a hill

In the case of cycling up a 8% hill, grade (s) is 0.08. This time, much more power is required to combat road resistance (chiefly gravity) than air resistance. Speeds for a power output of around 230 Watts range from 12 km/h for the Seven, down to 8.5 km/h for the loaded Nomad.

Bicycle	Pair (W)	Proad (W)	vwind (m/s)	grade (m/m)	vc (m/s)	kmhc (km/h)	Diffseven (%)
Seven	10	221	0	0.08	3.3	12.0
Nomad (U)	10	221	0	0.08	2.9	10.6	0.88
Nomad (L)	6	226	0	0.08	2.4	8.5	0.71

Cycling into a headwind

In the case of cycling into a 20km/h headwind, V_wind is 5.6 m/s. An even greater proportion of power is required to combat air resistance as would be expected. Speeds for a power output of around 230 Watts range from 22 km/h for the Seven, down to 16 km/h for the loaded Nomad.

Bicycle	Pair (W)	Proad (W)	vwind (m/s)	grade (m/m)	vc (m/s)	kmhc (km/h)	Diffseven (%)
Seven	218	15	5.6	0	6.1	22.0
Nomad (U)	202	29	5.6	0	4.8	17.4	0.79
Nomad (L)	199	34	5.6	0	4.4	15.9	0.72

Cycling into a headwind up a hill

Probably the worst situation in cycling! Again cycling into a 20km/h headwind, this time on a 3% slope. Now it's pretty much an even split between power required to combat air resistance and power required to combat road resistance.

Bicycle	Pair (W)	Proad (W)	vwind (m/s)	grade (m/m)	vc (m/s)	kmhc (km/h)	Diffseven (%)
Seven	114	116	5.6	0.03	4.4	15.8
Nomad (U)	114	114	5.6	0.03	3.6	12.8	0.81
Nomad (L)	104	125	5.6	0.03	3.1	11.1	0.70

Coasting down a hill

No effort is required here! Assuming the hill is long enough, the bike and rider will reach a terminal velocity when P_air and P_road cancel each other out. The slope is -8% and assume no wind. For the first time, the loaded Nomad is not the slowest! It's extra mass triumphs, but it's not enough to beat the Seven's better aerodynamics and frictional properties.

Bicycle	Pair (W)	Proad (W)	vwind (m/s)	grade (m/m)	vc (m/s)	kmhc (km/h)	Diffseven (%)
Seven	943	-943	0	-0.08	15.3	55.2
Nomad (U)	803	-803	0	-0.08	12.8	45.9	0.83
Nomad (L)	1066	-1066	0	-0.08	13.3	47.9	0.87

Average Speed for the Loaded Nomad

For the test cases, a rider capable of generating 230 Watts should be able to propel the Unloaded Nomad between 79%-88% of the speed of the Seven and the Loaded Nomad between 70%-87% the speed of the Seven.

I can make this (very crude) deduction for myself. If I can manage 28 km/h average for the Seven, I should be able to average about 83% of that on the Nomad Unloaded and 76% of that on the Nomad Loaded. This equates to about 23 km/h for the Unloaded Nomad (which agrees with my recorded averages) and 21 km/h for the Loaded Nomad (as yet untested).

I've scheduled my trip at a leisurely 18-20 km/h average, so I hope my rather assumptive mathematics is reasonably valid!

References:
[1] Cycling Speed Maths and Ruminations
[2] Bicycle Performance
[3] Coefficients of friction. Rolling Resistance, Air resistance, Aerodynamics
[4] Energy consumption during cycling

Easy Rohloff Sprocket Removal

I was reminded by Vik's post, referencing this forum post, that it was time to check I could still remove my Rohloff Speedhub Sprocket. I had planned to release the sprocket every 2500 km to avoid any future trouble. I'm at 2700 km now and 4 winter months riding done, so I'm about on schedule!

The Rohloff Speedhub Sprocket can be difficult to remove
(if you leave it on too long)

Rohloff sprockets have some notoriety for becoming struck on tight, partly because Rohloff have specified a threaded sprocket in preference to a splined sprocket and lock-ring arrangement, but mostly because people leave the sprocket on far too long before trying to remove it. I wasn't expecting any problem removing my sprocket at this stage and that's how it turned out. It unscrewed easily.

Removing the sprocket: Fix the sprocket removal tool with the quick release nut,
arrange the spanner and chainwhip
and push down on the chainwhip (NOT the spanner)

When I received my Nomad, I took most of it apart to be satisfied that everything had been prepared properly. (I'm not a very trusting person). To Thorn's credit, everything was fine. When I reassembled the bike I used my preferred copper based anti-seize preparation on most of the threaded components. Of course, I removed and refitted the Rohloff sprocket during this process as well.

Use an anti-seize preparation when refitting

Therefore, for today's quick operation, I had a Rohloff sprocket that was fitted using an anti-seize preparation and it had only been on the hub for 4 months and 2700 km. That's why it could be removed so easily.

I do quite a lot of bike maintenance and I think most tasks are pretty easy with the right tools and preparation. Maintenance only becomes difficult when you leave it too long. Then you have to resort to long levers, hammers and grunting a lot. By regularly removing and refitting torqued threaded components, you can save yourself a lot of headaches.

I've a comment regarding the positioning of the chainwhip in the forum post referred to at the top. (I also use a Park Tool SR-2). It has the chainwhip in the 10 position and the chain wrapped around the sprocket with a tie-wrap for extra security. I prefer the SR-2 chainwhip in the 8 or 9 position because more chain links are naturally engaged and then the tie-wrap isn't necessarily needed. There is still enough leverage in this position.

 More links engaged in the 8 position for about the same leverage

Incidently, in the Rohloff video on sprocket removal, the chainwhip is attached 'upside down'. I tried this with the SR-2, but it won't grip that way at all. This suggests the best positioning may well depend on the chainwhip make and it's characteristics.

The moral of the story here? Regularly remove your Rohloff Speedhub Sprocket and reassemble with an anti-seize preparation and you won't have any trouble. It should only take 10 mins and will ensure the sprocket always unscrews easily. While you're at it, how about extending this regime to include the pedals, cranks, bottom bracket and EBB as well...

Getting used to the Rohloff Speedhub

I'm getting used to the Rohloff Speedhub and I'm enjoying my first experience with hub gears!

Rohloff Speedhub - now used

Rohloff gear changing is usually easy and effortless. There's a delicate "click" from the hub gear box, transmitted through the cables to the shifter, on every shift action. You do need, though, a light touch with the shifter and a small synchronised lift of pedal pressure to operate the system effectively and this took me a bit of time to master. At first, I was too heavy-handed and kept shifting 2 gears at a time or 'blocking' gear changes by not lifting pedal pressure enough!

I still occasionally fluff the 'difficult' shift from 8th to 7th, by forgetting to back off. This triggers the hub's protection mechanism and puts it temporarily into the top gear (14th). Of course this usually happens on a hill and can lead to a moment of panic as you're simultaneously trying to lift the pedal pressure to change down and maintain forward momentum! A couple of other gear changes seem to get 'blocked' more than others (9th to 8th especially), if there is any amount of torque on the cranks when you twist the shifter.

I've picked up a couple of Rohloff gear changing techniques! If you change gear when the cranks are approaching vertical you hardly need to lift off pedal pressure because in that position there's very little torque going through the cranks. I've also noticed it's actually easier to change down from 8th directly into 6th! (I don't know if this is recommended though)? A friend of mine, also with a Rohloff geared bike, commented he often does this as well!

Unscrew the EX box (below the dropout) and the wheel is easily removed
You can also see the small torque plate that needs slotting in the dropout (below the QR lever)

Sometimes with hub gears, back wheel removal can be tricky. On the Nomad, the use of the Rohloff EX Box has made rear wheel removal no more difficult than my derailleur geared bikes. Put the Rohloff into 14th gear, release the V-Brake noodle, release the EX Box by undoing the knurled thumb screw and drop the wheel out. Easy. (This is also somewhat easier than Rohloff's alternative gear change mechanism the Internal Gear Mech. Here, two concertinaed gear cables have to be released using the special cable joiners. Some people have reported these are difficult to operate with cold and/or wet hands).

Although it's widely stated you can change gears with the Rohloff hub while stationary, you can only do so if there's no torque on the cranks! Once, I was slowly avoiding an obstacle on a trail and I was in a relatively high gear and also on a slight incline. As I navigated around the obstacle, I tried to select a lower gear but the shifter wouldn't rotate because I was having to press on the pedals to counteract the slope. I ground to a halt, desperately trying to change gear, but couldn't and just managed to release a foot from the pedal to avoid a prat-fall!

One slight bug-bear I have with the Rohloff hub is losing momentum both at the start of inclines and riding into headwind. The gaps between gears 9, 10, 11, 12 (my normal riding ratios on 40x16) are bigger than I'd like. I sometimes feel I'm grinding along in 11th, but after changing down, I'm spinning more than I want to in 10th and vice versa. The Rohloff gear ratios are all evenly spaced (13.6% difference) and although the spacing of the 1-7 climbing ratios feels OK, I'd prefer the spacing of the 8-14 ratios to be closer together. I often feel I'd like a gear 9½ or 10½. I'd consider sacrificing some of the 526% gear range for slightly closer normal riding ratios. It's a shame that aspect of the Rohloff isn't configurable...

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
40x16: 13.6% diff: 526% range	18	21	23	27	30	34	39	44	50	57	65	73	84	95
38x16: 11.6% diff: 410% range	21	23	26	29	32	36	40	44	50	55	62	69	77	86

Closer normal riding ratios, if the gear difference was reduced

I also find it mildly irritating having to move my hand from the handlebar grip (and shift my balance slightly) to operate the Rohloff shifter. It's only a few centimetres of movement, but I feel it spoils 'the flow' a little. (I've used Campag Ergo levers exclusively for many years and appreciate greatly this superb way of changing gears).

Not very far from grip to shifter, but too far not to have to shift your balance to operate

On the subject of noise, there is no real problem to report! Actually, 8-14 on my Rohloff bike is quieter than my (well maintained) Campagnolo geared road bikes! I only hear the tyres when rolling along in these gears. The freewheeling noise is also less, although Campag freewheels aren't that quiet. Of course, I wish the noise and whirring of the Rohloff reduction gears (1-7) wasn't present, but it's not really that intrusive. I do sometimes find myself holding onto 8th gear, when I should be in 7th, so the noise and whirring obviously has some impact on my psyche. It is only really 7th, though, that's any 'problem' and only for the first few seconds. After that I settle in and get on with the job of climbing the hill...

Overall, I'm very happy with my Rohloff setup. With it's idiosyncrasies duly noted, it is working perfectly and has been great for winter weather riding! The joy of using one on wet and muddy rides (that would be all of them so far then Shaun) and the subsequent easy chain cleaning and zero maintenance regime is a revelation! As long as I don't have any serious trouble with the hub, I will feel that I've made the right choice for my expedition touring bike's transmission.

Specialized Body Geometry Footbeds and Shims

I have long been a fan of adding orthotics to my cycling shoes.

Our legs are 'designed' for walking, not for cycling. The natural canting of the foot (present in most people) helps to make walking very efficient, but while pedaling a bike, it can make the knee move from side to side (or rotate). This is inefficient and can sometimes cause repetition type injuries to ankles, knees and hips. Orthotics specifically designed for cycling, generally footbeds and shims, can be added to shoes to correct this problem.

I firmly believe that having a biomechanically efficient alignment between my pedals and shoes and my feet, knees and hips, improves my cycling and reduces my cycling related injuries.

Specialized BG Tahoe MTB Shoes, Footbeds and Shims

I've used Cyclefit in London a couple of times in the past for their racing shoe fitting service to achieve this. (I've also had an excellent bike fitting done there too).

Their shoe fitting service is quite involved and includes tests both off and on the bike. You are interviewed first about your cycling habits and then some biomechanical data and body measurements are taken. Footbeds and shims (if necessary) are added to each racing shoe based on the measurements and a static bike is used to assess the result. A laser sight line is pointed at each leg in turn to check the foot / knee / hip alignment and that the knee makes no side to side motion while pedaling. This is a great service and highly recommended, but it is expensive!

Since getting the Nomad, I've been using a pair of my 'tuned' racing shoes and a set of my normal road pedals, so that I could get used to the new bike position without disrupting my pedalling action. I also wasn't sure at the time, what I wanted to do about moving to a touring shoe setup and whether that would mean changing my pedal system as well. I'm pretty settled riding the Nomad now, so I decided to take a look at my shoe and pedal options...

Some more pictures (for shoe fetishists only...)

Of course, I was keen to set up any touring shoe I bought 'properly'. Riding across Canada would probably expose any biomechanical pedaling inefficiencies pretty quickly, especially as I'm used to pedaling 'properly'!

After a useful bit of forum researching, the Specialized Body Geometry system of shoes and footbeds jumped out at me. I decide to purchase the BG Tahoe MTB Shoe, a cycle touring shoe with good walking potential and the matching footbed and shim system. (Note that the footbeds and shims could be added to any cycling shoe, you don't need Specialized branded shoes).

I visited a Specialized Concept Store in Ruislip, West London, to try on shoe sizes and sort out the footbeds and shims I required. I was asked to stand on the Specialized "Arch-O-Meter", a thermal pad that measured the profile of my feet arches. I already knew that I had 'flat feet' and the "Arch-O-Meter" showed that impressively! That information enabled me to choose the most appropriate footbed profile (red or blue for me) and a selection of shims. While I was in the shop, I also picked up a pair of Mr. Shimano's (2nd) finest SPD pedals, the PD-M770 XT.

Shimano XT (PD-M770) SPD Pedal

Once home, I had more shoe setup data to gather! I needed to measure whether my forefeet were varus or valgus (or neutral). I already had a good idea that my feet were varus (as are about 85% of the population) from my Cyclefit shoe fittings. My right foot is also slightly more varus than my left foot!

The Specialized test involved performing 1/3 leg squats in front of a low mirror to simulate a pedalling action. You drop a plumb-line from the mirror and also mark a dot on your knee-cap. Then you line up your second toe, the dot on your knee and your hip with the plumb-line, perform the leg squat and observe the movement of the knee. For most people, this will result in the knee moving towards the centreline of the body. This indicates a varus forefoot. You perform the test separately for each leg.

You then repeat the test with the cycling shoes on. This time you're aiming to keep the knee in line with the plumb-line (and thus in line with your foot and hip). You achieve this by adding an appropriate shim (orange = varus = +1.5º, yellow = valgus = -1.5º), if required, to the inside of the each shoe, underneath the footbed. Zero, one or two shims may be needed. I ended up with one orange shim in each shoe!

So I'm now set up and ready to swap over my pedals and shoes. This should be interesting...

Thorn's Eccentric Bottom Bracket

I've adjusted the Raven Nomad's Eccentric Bottom Bracket (EBB) once so far, to re-tension my slightly elongated chain. It was a painless affair and took 2 minutes. I will have to do this about once every 1000 - 1500 km to maintain reasonable chain tension.

Although the first adjustments of the chain tension will be easy to perform, I'm not convinced (at the moment) that they will always be so. This is because of Thorn's choice of using a Set Screw EBB.

Thorn's Set Screw EBB

To lock the EBB after adjustment, you screw in two large semi-pointed set screws (bolts) underneath the bottom bracket. Once tightened, the set screws make indentations directly into the EBB casing enabling the screws to grip the EBB and keep it firmly in place. Every time you adjust a virgin EBB, you get two new (permanent) indentations. Over time, these indentations build up. I can think of some possible niggles with this method of locking the EBB.

Firstly, you will only be able to adjust the chain tension in quite coarse steps. If you try to make a very small adjustment, the set screws will engage the edge of the existing indentations and 'deflect' the EBB back to the previous position. (This has been mentioned on the Thorn forums). Not a big issue, but some people like to have a 'perfect' chain tension all the time and this is not achievable with a Set Screw EBB of this type.

Closeup of set screws underneath the bottom bracket

Once you've gone through one chain, you'll have a nice set of indentations in the EBB. When you fit a new chain, you'll need to reset the EBB. This should be pretty easy to do, as a new chain is of a standard pitch, so by naturally tensioning the chain you should 'find' the first EBB indentations again. After that, though, could it become more hit and miss? Unless you re-tension the chain at roughly the same slackness as the first chain (easy to judge?), the EBB will accumulate further indentations. Eventually, you could unintentionally deflect into existing indentations and move the EBB from your intended position. This might niggle if the deflection over-tensions the chain slightly, perhaps?

This could also happen if you use different combinations of chainrings and sprockets, on the same EBB, to develop different gear ratios (E.g. 40x16 and 38x16). Each ratio will require a different EBB starting position and probably, separate adjustment indentations.

Perhaps it's worth marking the outward face of the EBB, every time you adjust the chain tension, so that later at least you know where the existing indentations are?

There are other designs for an EBB. One design uses a split bottom bracket shell with 'pinch bolts' that clamp the shell around the EBB, rather like a brazed-on seat collar clamping a seat pin. Another (patented) design is the Bushnell Eccentric. Instead of using two set screws to lock the EBB, it has an allen key fitting, on the outward face of the EBB, which drives internal cams apart that spread the EBB inside the bottom bracket shell. Another similar design is the Carver EBB. The Gary Fisher EBB operates in a related way and looks like an oversized 'quill' stem! (Note, the Bushnell is 53.8mm in diameter and won't fit the current 51.3mm Thorn BB. The other 3rd-party examples probably won't fit either as Thorn's EBB seems smaller than 'standard').

The alternative designs certainly appear to offer a finer granularity of EBB adjustment and solve the potential niggles I've discussed, but perhaps introduce different compromises and problems? (I've read of some creaking and slipping issues).

What do people think? It would be interesting to know the underlying reason(s) why Thorn choose the older style Set Screw EBB ahead of other potential designs...

Raven Nomad Rack Mounting Bosses

In the advertising literature for the Raven Nomad S&S that I downloaded, Thorn made several statements about their rack mounting bosses being 6mm, highlighting, to me anyway, a clear advantage over standard 5mm bosses commonly found on other bikes.

They also have 6mm stainless steel bosses for our own heat-treated Cro-Mo carriers... The frames have ... oversize (6mm thread) upper carrier bosses... The forks have ... oversize 6mm stainless steel fittings for lo-loader carriers...

Raven Nomad Brochure Issue 2 May 2009

Although the literature was accurate in this respect, I thought it slightly misleading after I received my bike. I had assumed all the rack mounting bosses would be 6mm when in fact, the rack mounting bosses on the Raven Nomad rear dropout are actually 2 x 5mm.

Two x M5 Bosses on Raven Nomad rear dropout

My Thorn Expedition rack was fitted to the rear dropout with one M5 bolt and four padding washers per side. I was surprised by this. It could be argued that, of all the rack mounting points, this point will be under the most stress when hauling heavy loads!

After speaking to SJS Cycles, I gathered this was a legacy issue concerning Thorn's Rohloff specific OEM rear dropouts. The same dropouts are used across Thorn's entire Rohloff range, apparently because they are very expensive to manufacture. The current dropouts have two 5mm bosses for rack and mudguard fitting per side. I suppose it must be considered too costly to produce a separate 6mm bossed version for the heavy duty Raven Nomad?

SJSC has some cast dropout adaptors that convert the twin 5mm bosses into a single 6mm rack mounting point, but I was told these were mainly used to move the rack outwards to prevent fouling on disc braked equipped bikes. They don't usually fit the adaptor to bikes without disc brakes because to paraphase the SJSC contact I spoke to: "it's debatable whether it makes the rack fixing any stronger, as the rack legs have to be 'sprung' outwards to fit the adaptor".

 Cast End 2 x M5 to 1 x M6 Stainless Dropout Adaptors

(with 5mm lathe reduction of face)

I could also tap out one 5mm boss to 6mm per side (if I felt brave enough) as the bosses appeared to have enough surplus metal.

I was finding this 5mm boss 'compromise' a touch frustrating. Either you needed 6mm mounting points for 'expedition' racks on an 'expedition' tourer (as Thorn's Raven Nomad literature suggested) or you didn't!

So the options were:

• Continue with 1 x M5 bolt + padding washers per side;
• Fit the cast dropout adaptors;
• Tap out a pair of 5mm bosses to 6mm.

 Adaptor secured with two M5 cap-headed bolts

After some um-ing and ah-ing, I decided to fit the cast dropout adaptors. (I was sent them free of charge by SJSC). Crude reasoning suggested it would be better to spread the rack load, at the rear dropouts, over four x M5 bolts rather than two. I assumed the M5 bolt would continue to be the structural weak link under this setup. I didn't feel comfortable tapping out the boss threads on the bike's dropouts.

 

Rack secured to the adaptor with M6 bolt

In light of my conversation with SJSC over the adaptor's primary usage and the fact that I didn't run disc brakes, I asked my brother (who works in precision engineering) to lathe 5mm from the adaptor's face. This reduced the adaptor's width from 15mm to 10mm and meant that the rack legs needed to be sprung outwards by a smaller amount when fitted.

 

Rack now sits 10mm away from rear dropout

I don't believe I've compromised the adaptor (!) as it's still thicker than the bike's dropout bosses and I'm content with the final result. Time will tell...

(There was some discussion on this subject in this thread on the Thorn Forums during September 2009).

Wheel Truing Stand

I'm reasonably competent at bicycle mechanics and do virtually all my own maintenance, but there has always been one area I've left well alone - wheel building. I've always considered wheel building a bit of a black art, something that only the chosen few can perform, something that requires a lifetime of experience to get right...

My Homemade Wheel Truing Stand

My lack of experience also extends to wheel truing. I think I've only ever attempted to true one wheel. I was 19 years old and thought I'd have a go. Over about 30 minutes, I progressively turned a slightly out-of-true wheel into a pretzel. Eventually, I gave up and I had to walk the wheel 3 miles to the bike shop. Mal, the shop owner, sorted it out in about 3 minutes!

To be honest, I've not exactly missed having these skills. Despite riding lots of miles, I just don't seem to break wheels. In the intervening 25 years, I've only ever broken one spoke and perhaps got the LBS to true a wheel a handful of times.

Built to the design in Roger Musson's ebook

Once I'd dreamt up this Canada project, though, I knew I'd have to revisit this area, at least to know how to replace a spoke and true up the wheel by the roadside. But then I thought, why not conquer your fears and learn how to wheel build properly. Hey, that's a great idea!

I thought about going on a course, but they're a bit thin on the ground and I couldn't find one locally. So, I started looking for a self-teach method, something like a book or a video. After a bit of researching, this ebook was continually being recommended: Roger Musson's "The Professional Guide to Wheel Building".

Adjustable pillar (left) to cater for different hub widths

I downloaded the PDF for the princely sum of £9. I was immediately impressed. The book was extremely detailed covering components, tooling, building, repairing and wheel design. One of the first things I noticed was that Roger Musson recommended that you build your own truing stand and ancillary tools. The complete plans for his own wheel truing stand were included in the book. I thought I'd have a go at making one, as I like a good woodwork project...

As you can see, it all turned out rather well! The truing stand can be used to build a variety of wheels with different hub and rim sizes. The right pillar is adjustable, allowing the distance between the two pillars to be varied between 100mm (for a standard front hub) and 150mm (downhill MTB).

 

Close up of wheel truing stand dropouts

It was very cheap to make, just a small sheet of MDF, nuts and bolts (Stagonset is good for buying small quantities), white enamel paint and some black foam card. My brother made the metal dropouts for me, but these could be fashioned out of wood, if you've not got access to metal tooling (or a handy brother). There are some other nice fabrications of Mr Musson's design here and here.

So, I'm learning the theory and I've built the wheel truing stand. My first foray into wheel building will be to rebuild a pair of faithful and well used Campagnolo Record hubs into new training wheels. I wonder how I'll get on!

My Brooks Saddle. Peace at last...

When I ordered the Raven Nomad, I thought I'd buy a nice Brooks saddle as well. I'd never owned one before.

To the cycling fraternity, a "Brooks" is a classic and covetous item. My saddle, the B17, has been around in one form or another for over 100 years and is still made by hand in England. It oozes craftsmanship and has a near legendary reputation as a long lasting, supremely comfortable perch for your bottom, allowing mile after mile of carefree bicycle riding...

There is one further aspect to a Brooks saddle that is also legendary - the break-in period.

Although some people find the saddle comfortable from the off, a lot of people do not and emotive words such as 'torture', 'suffering', 'pain' and 'murder' have all been used to describe the aforementioned period. I too have had a fraught time with my new Brooks and was, for a while, damaged. This is my story...

When the bike arrived, the first thing I did was rap the Brooks saddle with my knuckles. It sounded like knocking a wooden door. Undeterred, I set the saddle up, as I usually do, dead level with the nose 60mm behind the bottom bracket axle. It was then that I noticed that the B17 has very short saddle rails. I had to push the saddle right back to it's limit to set my position.

After a few rides, I had very sore sit bones (bare in mind I've been cycling long distances for 25+ years). It was probably down to the combination of the Nomad's more upright seating position and the new Brooks. I also felt like I was sitting on the metal rivets at the back of the saddle. After checking my measurements, I noticed the saddle has a shorter nose than modern racing saddles and needed to go back a bit further, but because of the short rails, I was out of aft adjustment...

Before and After the break-in period. Notice the depressions my sit-bones have made on the saddle in the picture to the right. There's still a way to go though...

I needed another seatpost with more setback. This was easier said than found. It was difficult to source a non-carbon seatpost with a lot of setback. I finally tracked down a Velo Orange Grand Cru 27.2mm Alloy Post with 30mm of setback and installed it. (It's actually a very nice post, polished aluminium with a two bolt design to precisely set the seat angle and with a generous setback, ideal for Brooks users struggling with the short saddle rails).

After a few more rides, the right sit bone was 'rescued' but the left one still hurt and seemed to be getting worse. I took a break from riding and took stock. After a bit of forum surfing, people recommended tilting the saddle, most saying nose up. I tried this, but it didn't help much. Then I tried nose down...

This helped the left sit bone a lot and things were improving, until the right sit bone got very painful again! (I must sit funny on a saddle). I'd now had the saddle for nearly 3 months and ridden 1500 kilometres. Ouch! I was thinking about throwing in the towel. It's relatively well known that not all people have a "Brooks Arse", as it's known in the UK, perhaps I'm one of them?

In a final attempt to salvage the situation, I set the bike up statically in the kitchen. Without shorts on (to sense everything), I repeatedly sat on the bike after tilting the saddle up and down, up and down, hunting for the most comfortable position.

It was definitely better when tilted nose up, I decided, but that had previously hurt my left sit bone, hadn't it? I thought I'd try it again anyway, because at least I'd get relief on my hurting right one for a while! Low and behold, the next ride wasn't too bad. It wasn't comfortable but at least it was bearable.

Over the last few rides, things have been getting better! I think it's now safe to declare that my Brooks saddle and I are at peace and looking forward to a long and happy relationship and that I'm just the latest in a long line of Brooks owners who've had to go through this painful initiation process to move a step nearer to cycling nirvana!

Thorn Nomad Mk2

Thorn has published a brochure for the new Nomad Mk2 (PDF, 13MB).

(Update: The suspension version of the Nomad Mk2 is detailed in this brochure: Thorn Front Suspension MTB and Touring Bikes (PDF, 11MB)).

I've had a browse and this is what I think has changed compared to the Raven Nomad (soon to be known as the Mk1, I suspect):

Nomad Mk2 is now suspension fork compatible

This seems to be the main design change focus. The Nomad Mk2 has been designed to accept suspension forks (either 80mm or 100mm travel) as an alternative to the twin crown plate 531 touring forks. The new frame has a more pronounced sloping top tube than the Mk1 to accommodate the greater stand-over height required when using suspension forks.

The Mk2 frame also has a reinforcing "open ended gusset" at the interface of the down tube and head tube to supposedly provide additional protection when hitting obstructions at speed with a heavy load.

Nomad Mk2 is available with or without S&S couplings

All Mk1 Raven Nomads came with S&S couplings. Thorn acknowledge in the brochure that they weren't really sure whether people were buying the Nomad Mk1 because it had S&S couplings or inspite of. So now the S&S couplings are a £400 option.

Nomad Mk2 has different sizing options

The 2009 incarnation of the Mk1 was offered in five sizes (497L, 512L, 537L, 562L, 587L). The new Mk2 has six size options (510M, 540L, 560M, 565L, 590L, 620L). The following is apparent:

• The smallest frame size is now 510M. The extra-small frame has been deleted, the reason given that it would be incompatible with a suspension fork;
• There are two 'medium' size frames with different top-tube lengths;
• There is an extra-large frame (620L) suitable for very tall people (up to 2.03m / 6' 8" apparently). The 620L can't accept a suspension fork though, because of it's head tube length.
  

Nomad Mk2 has a new colour option

The Nomad Mk2 is available in a brand new colour Tonka Yellow and this appears to be a gloss coating. Matt Black is the only other option and both are powder coating finishes.

There's an interesting couple of paragraphs in the brochure, questioning conventional wisdom by discussing having a bike in a stand-out colour as a theft deterrent and as an aid to bike recovery!

Nomad Mk2 price

The Nomad Mk2 frame & forks package with S&S couplings is £899. This is £100 more than the 2009 Mk1. The frame & forks price without the couplings is £499. Interestingly, this option is exactly the same price as a Raven Tour.

The headline "complete bike" price is £1,899, reduced from the £2,099 charged for the 2009 Mk1 (included couplings then though).

Rohloff eXp continues, eXp R deleted

Thorn's "hand built in Somerset" eXp continues to be offered (with it's inevitable hefty price premium), but it is stated as not suspension compatible. The eXXp is apparently suspension compatible but the details are now contained in another brochure not available at the time of writing. (Update: That brochure has now been published: Thorn Front Suspension MTB and Touring Bikes). The eXp R appears to have been deleted.

New prices for the eXp: add £1,000 (without S&S), add £1,500 (with S&S). 2009 Mk1 equivalent prices were £700 and £1,200, respectively.

My comments

The Raven Nomad has been revised after three years and the changes, as they say, are evolutionary rather than revolutionary, perhaps indicating that the Nomad was already a pretty sorted expedition touring bike. Apart from the geometry change to accommodate the suspension fork option and an additional reinforcing gusset, nothing else appears to have changed materially.

It could be argued (and the brochure concedes this) that most Nomad Mk2s will probably be sold with conventional steel forks, thus making the most significant change the ability to specify the bike without S&S couplings, saving the customer £400.

It will be interesting to see if many customers go for the suspension fork option. I'm not sure suspension forks are desirable on a multi-month tour, but they could give you the flexibility to extend the Nomad's (already considerable) comfort range in some circumstances. I can see suspension forks being purchased at a later date perhaps.

I'm not sure why the custom build eXp isn't being offered with a suspension fork option? Maybe because of the 853 tubing? Maybe because the eXp and eXp R models have been merged and the eXp re-positioned slightly? The price premium for the eXp seems to have increased significantly as well.

I'm wondering about the apparent blurring of differences between some of Thorn's product range, the Nomad Mk2 and the Sterling in particular. Perhaps the Sterling is being re-positioned as a vanilla Rohloff MTB offering? (Update: The Sterling appears to be continuing in its multi-purpose format. See Thorn Front Suspension MTB and Touring Bikes). Also, the Nomad Mk2 and Raven Tour frames are available for the same price and both are described as capable of world touring.

Finally, I'd love to hear some statistics with regards to customers' decisions over suspension v. no suspension, S&S v. no S&S and most importantly, Tonka Yellow v. Matt Black!

Thanks to Stuart (www.lifecycler.co.uk) for the heads-up regarding the release of the new brochure!

Rohloff Speedhub 500/14

My Raven Nomad doesn't have 'normal' derailleur gears, it has an internal hub gear system called a Rohloff Speedhub 500/14, designed and manufactured by a German company Rohloff AG.

For the technically minded, the Rohloff Speedhub is a bicycle hub containing an epicyclic gearing  (or planetary gearing) system. It has three planetary gear assemblies. The first two assemblies provide 7 gears between them and a third assembly, serving as a reduction gear, doubles this. Hence, the Rohloff Speedhub has 14 gears. All the gears are evenly spaced with a 13.6% increase between sequential gear ratios. There's some fascinating technical documentation contained within Rohloff's online presentation.

For the un-technically minded, the Rohloff Speedhub is a bicycle hub containing lots and lots of cogs that mesh and whir in perfect harmony performing 'magic'. You too can click on the link above, but you won't understand any of it. (But you can look at the pretty pictures).

Cutaway of Rohloff Speedhub - Picture Rohloff AG

The Rohloff hub has been around since 1996 and the same basic design (give or take a few tweaks) has been in production ever since. I believe that hub units have been given sequential serial numbers and my hub is no. 98806, so maybe close to 100,000 units have been produced so far.

The advantages and disadvantages of a Rohloff Hub v. Derailleur gears has been debated thoroughly over the years and this is definitely a product that polarizes the cycling community. For a cross-section of written views, from nay-sayers and yea-sayers, try the following links: 1 2 3 4 5.

 Cutaway of Rohloff Speedhub - Picture Rohloff AG

Here's my distilled take on it, with respect to long-distance adventure touring. (I suppose I must side with the yea-sayers seeing as I bought a Rohloff equipped bike...).

Advantages (all minor points it has to be said):

• Ability to change gears while stationary - This is the useful convenience. A loaded touring bike is very heavy. If you stop, or are forced to stop, in a high gear on a derailleur geared bike, to continue you can either slowly crunch and slip your way through the gears to something more manageable or lift the back wheel up and simultaneously turn the crank (and flick the gear changer somehow). Either way is not pretty and will result in some groaning.
  
• Less drive chain maintenance - Derailleur gears work very well when they are clean and well lubricated, but over time they clog up with a mixture of dust, mud and oil, become less efficient and eventually need maintenance. This process is greatly accelerated in wet weather and on wet, muddy roads, even more so. Restoring efficiency requires cleaning the chain, the cassette (and the gaps inbetween), the chainrings, the rear derailleur and jockey wheels and the front derailleur followed by a lubrication step. A Rohloff equipped bike only has a chain wrapped around a single sprocket and single chainring. Everything else is sealed from the elements This simpler system is less susceptible to clogging up, so maintenance intervals are increased and when maintenance is required, it is quicker and easier to perform. Less oil on your hands during a tour must be a good thing!
  
• Less wear - Chains, sprockets and chainrings wear down on both systems. The chain, sprockets and chainrings of a derailleur geared bike will wear more quickly though, for a number of reasons. When you change gear the chain jumps (derails) over the sprockets causing additional wear to both items. For most gear ratios, the chain is not perfectly in line between the sprocket and chainring. This will result in additional sideways stress on the chain and increased wear. The derailleur system has a greater surface area to collect contaminants and this will also contribute in the wearing of the system. The non-derailling, straight chain-lined, inherently cleaner Rohloff drive system also has a further trick up it's sleeve. It's sprocket and chainring can be reversed and reused when worn down on one side. Only a new chain is required to return the drive chain to an 'as new' condition.
  
• Less to damage - I wouldn't call a derailleur system fragile, especially when protected somewhat by a rack and panniers, but there is clearly more 'sticking out' to knock and damage. The rear derailleur and gear hanger is open and vulnerable to damage from impact while riding especially on poor road surfaces (stones, rocks, sticks, crashes) and during transportation (baggage handlers). (The Rohloff EX box is also vulnerable to impact damage, but less so I feel).
  
• Easier spoke replacement - When a wheel is fit for purpose and built properly, it shouldn't break any spokes, but inevitablly it will at some inconvenient point. The majority of spoke breakages on a derailleur equipped bike will occur on the cassette side of the rear wheel. This is due to cassette side spokes being tensioned higher than all the other spokes (wheel dishing). The cassette will need to be removed to replace one of these spokes and that will require tools (normally a cassette lock ring tool, a large spanner and a chain-whip). All spokes on a Rohloff hub wheel can be replaced without the need to remove the sprocket and hence no additional tools are needed beyond a spoke key. (OK, this one's only a minor advantage as you could carry a FiberFix spoke for a temporary repair and/or a hypercracker tool, but still...). Also, the rear wheel of a derailleur equipped bike has spokes of two different lengths, whereas those on a Rohloff equipped wheel are all the same length.
  

Disadvantages:

• I'm buggered if the Rohloff hub fails - AFAIK nobody has ever reported a complete Rohloff hub failure, but there have been several documented cases of the hub's flanges cracking or failing (1 2 3 4 5) and needing replacement. I've also read of the occasional hub developing partial problems (bearing play, certain gears slipping or unusable) and having to be returned to Rohloff for servicing. So, Rohloff hubs are not bullet-proof. This is the coup de grace as far as the nay-sayers are concerned. They argue that if the Rohloff hub fails in the back of beyond, it will be almost impossible to repair and nobody will have spares locally. This is irrefutable. They continue that local spares for their derailleur system will be easier to obtain. This is also true but ignores the larger picture. The hub gear (or derailleur system for that matter) is not the only or the most likely point of failure. It could be argued that the wheel rims, the handlebars, the forks and even yourself are more susceptible to catastrophic failure (what we're taking about here) and all cyclists are equally susceptible to these failure modes. You may be a considerable distance from any bike shop assistance and in that case again, it doesn't matter what's failed, you are stuck and will be walking (unless you've broken your leg). Overall, there is the very insignificant risk of failure of the hub drive system, but if it does happen, virtually any urban centre is reachable by UPS in a few days, so spares can be shipped out. A Rohloff hub failure it isn't worth fretting about.
• Requires a very short spoke length - Actually, this one hasn't been mentioned much in discussions about the Rohloff hub, but has caught my attention. The Rohloff hub is big and consequently the hub flanges are very high compared to normal hubs. This means that when building the hub into a wheel, unusually small spoke lengths are required. (Mine are just 238mm long). This would imply that obtaining the correct spokes locally could be an issue. I would always carry a few spares with me for replacing the odd breakage, but if I needed to do a complete rebuild onto a new rim while away on tour, although I could probably reuse most of the existing spokes, I might feel inclined to carry a few more spares to cover this operation. Whilst we're talking about wheel rebuilding, my rear Andra 30 rim has spoke holes that are 'Rohloff drilled'. That is, the spoke holes are drilled at a slight angle to reduce mis-alignment between the nipple and spoke caused by the large hub flanges, even when lacing 2x cross. This mis-alignment has been reported as the cause of some Rohloff hub related spoke breakages. Obviously, a locally sourced rim won't have this attribute and then I may be exposed to a slight increase of future spoke breakage. (It may be possible to 'cold set' the spoke holes of the new rim a little to help with alignment, though).

There are a few other 'disadvantages' that are commonly cited that I feel are in fact non-issues, being either easy adjustments, a minor inconvenience, irrelevant or insignificant. These are:

• More expensive - Intially yes, but because of reduced drive chain wear when compared to a derailleur system, the cost difference diminishes over time. I think you need to consider the 'whole of life' aspect of this product when thinking about cost, not just the 'headline' purchase figure. Also, the additional cost (if any) is probably insignificant when compared against the total cost of a number of long distance 'adventure tours'.
  
• Heavier - It's perhaps an additional 400 grams in 40kg. That's 1%...
• Hub requires an oil change every 5,000 km - True and this requires the carrying of (or rendezvous with) an 'oil change kit' on 5k+ tours. I feel this is adequately offset by the general reduction in drive chain maintenance highlighted earlier.
  
• Whirring / noise especially in gears 1 thru 7 - There is additional noise from the hub in these low gears, but the noise is not a disadvantage and actually, I quite like the noise! It also reduces as the hub runs in, apparently.
  
• Increased friction especially in gears 1 thru 7 - Slight, a percentage point again, nothing to worry about. I don't feel any more emasculated climbing hills with a Rohloff v. derailleurs.
• Changing from the 7th to the 8th gear or vice-versa is problematic - Not really, you'll get used to it. You do need to back off the pressure on the pedals during this gear change (or you'll end up in 14th gear until you do back off), but this is easily learned and becomes second nature. There's probably more chance of fluffing a simultaneous front and rear derailleur shifting manoeuvre to select the next gear ratio. (I do concede there is a slight issue with reading the Rohloff shifter, especially in reduced light, because of it's black-on-black numbering system. This can make it difficult judging when you're in 8th gear and needing to back off for the next downshift. The same applies, obviously, when riding at night).
  

One further point worth noting is that not all Rohloff equipped bikes are created equal. Some require a chain-tensioner, if they don't have a eccentric bottom bracket or some adjustment available in the rear dropouts to maintain the chain tension. Some use an internal gear change mechanism (as opposed to the simpler and neater external 'EX' box). Some require a long torque arm, if the bike hasn't got Rohloff OEM dropouts. All of these things add complexity and compromise into the Rohloff design and negate some of the advantages of the simplicity of the optimised system. Something to bear in mind.

As a final statement, I would say that either a Rohloff geared bike or a derailleur geared bike would work well on a long tour with very few, if any major problems. So, the decision of using one system over the other is, I suppose, an entirely moot point!