Swapping internals in S-A hub?

James Thomson

"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> a écrit:

> I thought I read that the lowest gear of old S-A five speeds
> was extremely inefficient. IOW, that shifting to low didn't
> really reduce your workload significantly, but just gave you
> less speed.

That's an old myth. There's some relevant discussion in this thread:

http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.b...ba32282ea4ff3d/

James Thomson

Tim McNamara

In article <d08bd$483785dd$30748@news.teranews.com>,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> From Somers above "Maybe on top more than three planets are needed "
>
> S5 and AW each have four planet gears (Brit: pinions), not three.

My Sachs Torpedo 3 speed hub has, as far as I have found out from
searching on the net, 3 planet gears and that hub has a reputation for
reliability that is better than the AW (no walking out of engagement in
high gear). It also rated a bit higher in efficiency in Frank Berto's
tests- perhaps due to having three rather than four planet gears?

> p.s. SW have three, but SW of course 'Seldom Work';AWs 'Always Work'!
>
> p.p.s Yes I know it's 'Type A, Wide Range' but the mnemonic is cute.

Well, perhaps "'Twill Always Work Right" would fit. :-)

Frank Krygowski

On May 24, 1:59 am, "James Thomson" <yosnap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> a écrit:
>
> > I thought I read that the lowest gear of old S-A five speeds
> > was extremely inefficient. IOW, that shifting to low didn't
> > really reduce your workload significantly, but just gave you
> > less speed.
>
> That's an old myth. There's some relevant discussion in this thread:
>
> http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.b..._thread/thread/...
>
> James Thomson

Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I can see.
Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.

It would be nice to see some test data on the S-A 5 speed.

- Frank Krygowski

Tim McNamara

In article
<0ee921d9-7339-4279-b1af-dac25d4bc0d3@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 24, 1:59 am, "James Thomson" <yosnap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> a écrit:
> >
> > > I thought I read that the lowest gear of old S-A five speeds was
> > > extremely inefficient. IOW, that shifting to low didn't really
> > > reduce your workload significantly, but just gave you less speed.
> >
> > That's an old myth. There's some relevant discussion in this
> > thread:
> >
> > http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.b...e_thread/thread
> > /...
> >
> > James Thomson
>
> Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I can see.
> Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.
>
> It would be nice to see some test data on the S-A 5 speed.

In case your news server missed it, someone posted information they got
from S-A about the efficiencies of the S-A 5 speed in the various gears.
There was a pretty big drop in efficiency in gears 1 and 5. It should
just a few posts back up the thread.

Dan Burkhart

Modern incarnations have triple planet sets, not quads. I'm looking at the internals of a current production 5 speed right now.
Dan Burkhart
www.boomerbicycle.ca

James Thomson

"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> a écrit:

> Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I
> can see. Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.

Without wanting to appear conceited, there's a distinction to be made
between one participant who's familiar with only the myth, another who knows
the myth and uses the hubs in question, and others participants who aren't
familiar with the myth, the hubs, or the context.

Anyone who's familiar with these hubs knows that:

bottom gear is inefficient

and

bottom gear is not so inefficient as not to be useful.

The difficulty is trying to convey a sense of the problems with this
discussion to an audience that's broadly unfamiliar with hub gears in
general (hub gears never having had the popularity in North America that
they once had in Britain), and these hubs in particular.

Imagine if a rumour was in circulation that an S5 hub will play "God Save
the Queen" if shifted from middle to bottom gear without passing through
second. Someone familiar with the hubs might say it was nonsense - but
without proof, the rumour persists. Someone Googles and finds that some hubs
are said to emit noise in certain gears (a Rohloff plays "Im wunderschönen
Monat Mai" if shifted from eighth into seventh under load) so it's certainly
not impossible that a Sturmey plays "God Save the Queen" in certain gears.
Someone else says that he rode the hub in question fifteen years ago and
remembers distinctly that it made a noise, but it sounded more like "Rule
Britannia". Still, it was fifteen years ago. Someone postulates that a batch
of the hubs slipped through that played "Rule Britannia", which would
explain this exception to the well-known truth that all of these hubs play
"God Save the Queen".

For what it's worth, *everybody* knows that an S5/2 actually sings "Knees
Up, Mother Brown" to the tune of "Jerusalem". But only the batch with a blue
plastic oiler cap.

James Thomson

Tim McNamara

In article <48392e91$0$901$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
"James Thomson" <yosnappyj@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> a écrit:
>
> > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I can see.
> > Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.
>
> Without wanting to appear conceited, there's a distinction to be made
> between one participant who's familiar with only the myth, another
> who knows the myth and uses the hubs in question, and others
> participants who aren't familiar with the myth, the hubs, or the
> context.
>
> Anyone who's familiar with these hubs knows that:
>
> bottom gear is inefficient
>
> and
>
> bottom gear is not so inefficient as not to be useful.

S-A's own numbers, as published earlier in the thread, show a steep drop
in efficiency in gears 1 and 5. Let's not forget that we do have some
facts to go on in this discussion. We should also mention that while
hub gears fall below the vaunted "98% efficiency" claimed for derailleur
systems, that latter number is achieved with optimum conditions- clean
drivetrain, centered chainline, fairly large cogs, etc. As cogs get
smaller, efficiency drops significantly (according to Berto's published
measurements in _The Dancing Chain_) and can easily be no better than a
hub geared system.

> The difficulty is trying to convey a sense of the problems with this
> discussion to an audience that's broadly unfamiliar with hub gears in
> general (hub gears never having had the popularity in North America
> that they once had in Britain), and these hubs in particular.

Hub gears were the dominant form of variable gearing in the US from WWII
until about the mid 1960s, when Schwinn began to have success in
marketing derailleur geared bikes. Youngsters under 30 might never have
ridden a bike with hub gears, but Frank and I and Jobst and a number of
other participants in this group are older than that. I still have a
bike with a three speed hub, which I ride frequently, and know a few
dozen people who ride bikes with hub gears frequently. They are not
really rara avis, after all, even if not so common. My friend Jim's
bike shop, which caters to bike commuters and the like rather than
racers, sells a fair number of modern new bikes (Breezer) with hub gears
annually.

The hub gear situation in Britain seems to be not radically different.
Derailleurs appear to have taken over there even earlier than in the US.

Frank Krygowski

On May 24, 6:47 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <0ee921d9-7339-4279-b1af-dac25d4bc...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 1:59 am, "James Thomson" <yosnap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> a écrit:
>
> > > > I thought I read that the lowest gear of old S-A five speeds was
> > > > extremely inefficient. IOW, that shifting to low didn't really
> > > > reduce your workload significantly, but just gave you less speed.
>
> > > That's an old myth. There's some relevant discussion in this
> > > thread:
>
> > >http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.b...e_thread/thread
> > > /...
>
> > > James Thomson
>
> > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I can see.
> > Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.
>
> > It would be nice to see some test data on the S-A 5 speed.
>
> In case your news server missed it, someone posted information they got
> from S-A about the efficiencies of the S-A 5 speed in the various gears.
> There was a pretty big drop in efficiency in gears 1 and 5. It should
> just a few posts back up the thread.

Ah, yes. That wasn't the news server (GG); that was my fault.
Thanks.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

On May 25, 5:14 am, "James Thomson" <yosnap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> a écrit:
>
> > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I
> > can see. Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.
>
> Without wanting to appear conceited, there's a distinction to be made
> between one participant who's familiar with only the myth, another who knows
> the myth and uses the hubs in question, and others participants who aren't
> familiar with the myth, the hubs, or the context.
>
> Anyone who's familiar with these hubs knows that:
>
> bottom gear is inefficient
>
> and
>
> bottom gear is not so inefficient as not to be useful.

James, pardon me, but you're really saying "I know I'm right and
others are wrong." Data trumps self confidence. I thank Carl for (as
usual) searching out actual data.

I'll also note, the only 5 speed S-A I've ever ridden (that old
Dunelt) did have shifting problems. I could give even more detail,
but suffice to say I was never satisfied with the reliability of its
shifting. So my impressions could be clouded by a bad sample.

- Frank Krygowski

James Thomson

"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> a écrit:

> > > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I
> > > can see. Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.

> James, pardon me, but you're really saying "I know I'm right
> and others are wrong." Data trumps self confidence.

Data's nice, but in the absence of relevant data (as in the previous
thread), experience and inexperience aren't equivalent. I stand by my point.

James Thomson

Tim McNamara

In article <483c6654$0$874$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
"James Thomson" <yosnappyj@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> a écrit:
>
> > > > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I can
> > > > see. Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.
>
> > James, pardon me, but you're really saying "I know I'm right and
> > others are wrong." Data trumps self confidence.
>
> Data's nice, but in the absence of relevant data (as in the previous
> thread), experience and inexperience aren't equivalent. I stand by my
> point.

So, to sum up, you know what you know and don't want to be bothered with
facts. Okee-dokee, I won't bother you again.

James Thomson

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> a écrit:

> the S-5 was a minor rework of the long-produced and popular
> FW gear train, so it wasn't, in a design sense, a totally new leap
> for Sturmey Archer. Twenty years of FW by 1966.
>
> There's no difference in the low gear of an FW or an S-5, the
> same parts being used in both.

Thanks Andrew, I'm aware of that - I rode FWs for quite some time before my
first five-speed, and still own a few, the oldest being a 1948. The
interesting thing is that you never hear this myth in relation to the FW
which, as you say, is mechanically identical except for the gear selector.

> p.s. I'd take a trigger shifted FW, FG, FB 4 speed over an
> S-5 with factory SA five speed controls any day.

So would I, but I prefer a double-trigger S5/2.

James Thomson

Dan Burkhart

Sturmey Archer has recently come out with very nice "rapid fire" style thumb shifters for 3 and 5 speed hubs. I have one of the 5 speed ones, but I haven't tried it out yet.
Dan Burkhart
www.boomerbicycle.ca

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Dan Burkhart wrote:

>>> the S-5 was a minor rework of the long-produced and popular FW
>>> gear train, so it wasn't, in a design sense, a totally new leap
>>> for Sturmey Archer. Twenty years of FW by 1966.

>>> There's no difference in the low gear of an FW or an S-5, the same
>>> parts being used in both.

>> Thanks Andrew, I'm aware of that - I rode FWs for quite some time
>> before my first five-speed, and still own a few, the oldest being a
>> 1948. The interesting thing is that you never hear this myth in
>> relation to the FW which, as you say, is mechanically identical
>> except for the gear selector.

>>> p.s. I'd take a trigger shifted FW, FG, FB 4 speed over an S-5
>>> with factory SA five speed controls any day.

>> So would I, but I prefer a double-trigger S5/2.

> Sturmey Archer has recently come out with very nice "rapid fire"
> style thumb shifters for 3 and 5 speed hubs. I have one of the 5
> speed ones, but I haven't tried it out yet.

Looking at the Sturmey Archer pages, I am disappointed to see they
never change, apparently because they believe they have the ultimate
hubs. The flanges are 2mm thick, a feature that in the aluminum hubs
causes large spoke hole deformation and on both steel and aluminum hub
(shells) causes spoke failure, the elbows of spokes being designed for
3mm flanges.

http://www.sturmey-archer.com/hubs_5spd_S5_A.php

My son's S5 hub has 3mm flanges because Tom Ritchey machined one from
aluminum bar stock for me. I am not amused. They never fixed the AW
3-speed hub to not pop out of top gear under continuous load.

Jobst Brandt