Classified – “you’ve tried 1x, now try 1 better!”

[DieselnDust]

2 minutes ago, NickGM said:

93% less torque than what I was putting in? No this is definitely not the drivetrain for me.

Torque is amplified by a gearbox so torque will always be raised. Or reduced .

but either up or down the efficiency will lower the actual output from the calculated potential torque.

[WIPEOUT 1000]

22 minutes ago, NickGM said:

93% less torque than what I was putting in? No this is definitely not the drivetrain for me.

Because of the gearing, the unit to use should be power i.e. Torque x Angular Motion.

I do not know how efficient the the planetary gear system in a Classified hub is, e.g. if it was 97% efficient and if you could ignore the losses in the chain (impossible, but only to illustrate), it would mean that if you applied 300W on the crankset, you would loose an additional 9W on the rear wheel.

Try improving your FTP by 9W.

[lechatnoir]

37 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

Torque is amplified by a gearbox so torque will always be raised. Or reduced .

but either up or down the efficiency will lower the actual output from the calculated potential torque.

moderated is probably a better term than amplify - as you correctly state, the resulting torque could be less or more.

but a further correction, in drivetrains that are 1:1, there is no change in output, other than losses to efficiency (science teachers here will tell us to ignore losses), so it's not always either, as you imply. 

I think it depends. use of absolutes is always wrong (see what I did there) #correctionscorner

[NickGM]

2 hours ago, DieselnDust said:

Basically if the input force is 100N the output gear will deliver a force of  93N.

torque is a different matter but basically it will be 93% less than what the calculated value would be for the gear ratio.

 

13 minutes ago, WIPEOUT 1000 said:

Because of the gearing, the unit to use should be power i.e. Torque x Angular Motion.

I do not know how efficient the the planetary gear system in a Classified hub is, e.g. if it was 97% efficient and if you could ignore the losses in the chain (impossible, but only to illustrate), it would mean that if you applied 300W on the crankset, you would loose an additional 9W on the rear wheel.

Try improving your FTP by 9W.

@WIPEOUT 1000 it was just a joke in reference to @DieselnDust's post quoted above.  I'm pretty sure he meant to say 7% less, because its 93% efficient. ie: Why would I want this drivetrain if I'm losing 93% of what I put in?

 

[Cardio Goth]

I think this could be appealing to gravel riders and bikepackers who like the maintainability (assuming this is as bomb-proof as it's supposed to be) of not having a front derailleur, but are used to riding 2x on the road. I really like the small gearing jumps of GRX 2x, but some additional range to get a loaded bike up a hill would be great sometimes - this might fill that gap.  

[DieselnDust]

3 hours ago, lechatnoir said:

moderated is probably a better term than amplify - as you correctly state, the resulting torque could be less or more.

but a further correction, in drivetrains that are 1:1, there is no change in output, other than losses to efficiency (science teachers here will tell us to ignore losses), so it's not always either, as you imply. 

I think it depends. use of absolutes is always wrong (see what I did there) #correctionscorner

Well when it’s 1:1 ie locked then the efficiency is 100%. Or rather the efficiency of the chain drive. With the Classified system we’re only interested in the reduction gearbox side as you state .

they could build an additional section into the gearbox to amplify torque but that is currently moot as it’s not there

[MrJacques]

[Nico van Loggerenberg]

So let me sum this up - 

 

proprietary hubs

proprietary cassette

electronic shifting only

expensive

loses even more of my shrimp watts

BUT, makes my bike look 'cleaner'? Sign me up!

[droo]

On 4/4/2023 at 12:46 PM, lechatnoir said:

solving one problem by introducing (potentially) others is what we've done since we realised what thumbs were for

Every problem we have today was once a solution to an earlier problem.

Cars were touted as the clean solution cos they don't crap everywhere like horses.

Edited April 5, 2023 by droo
Fat fingers

[DieselnDust]

26 minutes ago, droo said:

Every problem we have today was once a solution to an earlier problem.

Cars were touted as the clean solution cos they don't crap everywhere like horses.

Was having this discussion with a vegan /greenie/woke sandal wearing type over the weekend. They were all on about how cars are killing is, EVs will be sooooo much better but really we should go back to horse drawn carriages and keep livestock in our back yards.

now parts of the argument I can buy into but the other loves school utopia bs was just laughable. I asked if they have ever been in a township? No of course not thats why they didn’t know how badly it smells when 100 horses , cows and chickens all poop in the same area.

and how many flies this attracts , and with does comes maggots and all kinds of other features

apparently it’s all supposed to be like a horse hotel in Constantia 

 

ja well nonja awrite 

[Jbr]

On 4/4/2023 at 11:53 AM, 100Tours said:

to be fair to Classified they have come up with an innovative solution to address the limits of 11s drivetrains.  But SRAM came out with 12s, and that mostly addressed those issues anyway, and all the okes who could afford Classified went 12s long ago. 

Shimano have solved that problem by making rings and FD that shift perfectly. I was a front derailleur hater until I got rid of my campag/rotor ovals setup and my eTap system that were both really *** no mater how hard I tried to get them dialed in.

Sram 12spd in 1x I know a couple of riders that run it, but I wouldn’t do it myself, I’m not going through all the trouble of waxing chains, using aero socks and skinsuits etc to lose 10w on the 10th cog because I’m crosschaining the slowest chain on the market around a cog smaller than my jockey wheels.

Back on the topic : i’m curious to see actual independent data about classified, at real life RPMs and wattage (say maybe 350w @ 95rpm) and also to hear long term reviews on reliability and maintainance. Right now it seems like an expensive piece of tech nobody is using despite A LOT of marketing, that’s not a great sign

[Carbon Ninja]

My thing is that classified asks you to run a smaller cassette (11-40) to achieve their slightly increased overall ratio difference. But just think how incredibly different these wide-range derailleurs are from the two-by derailleurs of the previous generation. From unsprung b-knuckle pivots to the incredibly long arcs between the b-knuckle and p-knuckle, to horizontal parallelograms, derailleurs have compromised many shift-assisting features in order to manage that super wide delta. Now, with the two-speed hub, surely we will end up using derailleurs that are not optimised for the smaller cassettes needed by Classified? Certainly, the old derailleurs on the smaller cassettes shifted a lot better than the 1 by 12 stuff.

[Mook]

On 4/5/2023 at 5:18 PM, droo said:

Every problem we have today was once a solution to an earlier problem.

Cars were touted as the clean solution cos they don't crap everywhere like horses.

Nowadays horses smoke more than cars ........ 😝

[dev null]

At around $2000 US I just do not see how the Classified Hub is viable for any weekend warrior. For most of us our FD is good enough. Would rather spend the money elsewhere. My Campag Record FD has never let me down in the past 12 years that I have been using it.

Edited April 11, 2023 by dev null

[DieselnDust]

46 minutes ago, Mook said:

Nowadays horses smoke more than cars ........ 😝

Emissions from lifestock is definitely higher per Horse power….than cars 

[Mtbiker404]

Is this better at not breaking when hitting a rock at 50km/hour down a mountain? Mtb derailleurs is not something I enjoy spending money on, it in the \"easily disposable\" category.