Rohloff hub oil changing kit

 

The Rohloff hub oil changing kit is a popular choice, even for non-Rohloff hubs. I believe that this is mainly because the Shimano kit is almost impossible to acquire, and the Rohloff kit works fine.

The kit comes with a syringe, a tube to connect the syringe to the hub, cleaning oil and replacement oil. It does not include the 3mm allen wrench but does include a replacement plug which the Shimano Nexus 11 does not use. The general sequence is:

• Suck out the old oil
• Add the cleaning oil
• Go ride for a few minutes
• Suck out the cleaning oil
• Add the replacement oil

The tube, which includes a 3mm threaded barb fitting, works for the Shimano Nexus 11 perfectly. When adding oil, I do NOT thread it all the way, so air can escape.

I'm not impressed with the syringe. It appears to be the cheapest one that they could find. I bought a cheap sinus cleaning kit because it came with a syringe. It turned out to be MUCH better. It has a better plunger and a threaded connector. I don't know why Rohloff couldn't include one. Do they think people will just throw it out?

Rohloff's syringe is in the middle.

The oil is completely scent free and clear. I suspect that it is just mineral or whatever baby oil is. I tried automatic transmission fluid (ATF) which smelled HORRIBLE. Finding cheaper alternatives is noble but ATF is not worth it.

This was the first time I had changed the oil in my Nexus 11 but, at least with the 3mm barb that the Rohloff kit comes with, I found it simple and trouble-free.

My Review of the Brilliant L-Train

 

That's a good looking bike, right? (photo courtesy of brilliant.com)

I had been in the market for a new bike since the derailleur on my goto bike exploded. (It really exploded. It was ripped off the hanger by the spokes, and so the frame was ruined.) Since I now hated derailleurs, I went looking for a bicycle with an Internal Hub Gear (IHG). I already had a 3-speed and generally liked them.

In case you don't know what an IHG is: Your parents might have had a 3-speed Schwinn without a derailleur. The gears are hiding in the back hub. Nowadays, they have 7, 8, 11 and even 18 speed IGHs. I like that IHGs can be shifted at a stop, so you don't have to mash the pedals when the light turns green. Also, there's none of that chain grinding noises when you're shifting (although it still likes it if you back off the pressure when you shift.)

The L-Train has an additional advantage, found on few bikes: It has a Gates carbon belt drive. What I like about belt drives is: No grease on the chain (because there is no chain.) Also, it seems to be lighter? I haven't measured but everything is rubber or plastic, so maybe?

All this convenience comes at a cost: You need a special frame with "track bike" drop-outs, and, for the belt drive, you need a frame that breaks open. I don't know if you can see it but the belt circles the chain stay. To get one on and off, you have to break one of the stays (since the belt doesn't come apart.) It's hard to see in the above picture but there's a little part that splits the seat stay. (It's in the white "socks" section.)

The bottom line is: If you want an IHG with a belt drive, it's MUCH easier to just buy a bike that comes with one, rather than retrofitting. I looked around and, by far, the cheapest that I found was the L-Train. Example alternatives: Marin Muirwoods and Trek District 8.

The L-Train comes with a 7-speed IHG. This is ok for most uses, but I wouldn't get it if you live in a hilly area. The lowest "gear inches" is 41" (29" * .632 * 50/22teeth). My previous bike had 34.8" so I'm struggling a bit on hills with the new bike.

The L-Train really is good looking, even in person. Mine is a gorgeous blue and white. The paint is a matte finish. I would have preferred a glossy finish, with topcoat. If you put any pressure on this paint, you see it. For example, I have a little tool kit that grabs the seat tube and it leaves a mark. I don't like bikes built to be put in museums; they should built for riding.

Typical of the IHG/belt drive crowd, the bike has lots of grommets and attachment points for front and back racks.

The faux-leather of the grips and seat look nice against the blue, and the matching rims, while not the best rims in the world, look slick and shiny.

Speaking of the rims: They are cheap and the "seam" is significant. When you brake, the seams conspire to rip apart your brake pads. They also "grab" every revolution.

The rest of the build isn't great either. The welds are huge and bubbly. Don't expect nice Italian butts here; expect Walmart warts.

Surprisingly, one of the handlebar clamp bolt holes wasn't reamed out. I had to borrow a buddy's reaming tool-set to clean it up, just so I could secure the handlebar and ride it. If you have a bicycle shop set up your bike ($100), I assume that they'd do this for you. Nevertheless, it speaks to the cheap manufacturing that Brilliant uses.

The only other nitpick is that there's silicone grease at all the openings. If it were oil, I wouldn't care, but silicone greases never comes off.

Other than that, the delivery of the bike is very professional. The box and bike in it are very secure. The instructions are clear. It even comes with a 15mm wrench and (I think?) an Allen wrench. They certainly did not just throw a bike into a pack-and-pray.

My last complaint is the accuracy of their website. When you buy a bike remotely, the facts need to be correct, so that you know what you're getting.

1) The website claims that the medium (sized bicycle) requires a minimum inseam of 30.5". In fact, it measures at 30". This is Good.

2) The website claims, "Weight: Easy for a walkup at only 27lbs!" Bullshit. It's 30 pounds. Not 29.5 pounds. It's 30.0 according to my scale. This is Very Bad.

If the bicycle was some Walmart darling, and you were paying $200 or so, all these nits would not be worth talking about. But the price of the L-Train has crept from $600 to now $780. For that money, you're getting close to something from Trek or Marin. I would look there first for that price.

Skip the L-Train; take a taxi.

Streetsblog desperately trying to come up with reasons to shoot down Sepulveda monorail proposal

Streetsblog LA recently posted 10 Reasons to Ditch the Sepulveda Pass monorail proposal. All 10 are a stretch of reality and common sense. It makes me wonder what their real motive is. Let's look:

1 - Caltrans won't allow it

Because a monorail would require posts, which drivers couldn't see past in the curves.

B.S. Do we not have curving tunnels on freeways in CA ? Does the 110 not have posts?

2 and 3 - Freeways transit stations are polluted and loud

And sitting in traffic is better? Sign me up.

4 - Freeway station areas are not conducive to transit and walking

Wah. Doesn't seem to hurt the 10 freeway train. See 2 and 3. Sign me up.

5 - No UCLA station

Wah. No, really, just, "Wah."

6 - Monorail proposers didn't map Metro's existing transit lines correctly

It "doesn't inspire confidence". So what? In their own words, "This gets even more nitpicky..." so they admit that it was nitpicky to begin with.

7 - Monorail technology has few upsides

"Monorail operations would mean ... vehicles that could only run on this line." Yes, you seem to understand how monorails work. :-)

"Monorails ... are ... nearly as old as conventional rails." This doesn't seem to stop Streetsblog from recommending trains...

"When running entirely aerially, monorails can be slightly cheaper than conventional rail." Win-win!

8 - Transit P2s have failed spectacularly in other cities

"Why do public-private partnership at all?" I'm not sure what point they're trying to make here.

9 - Privatization has already failed L.A. transit riders

Namely, bus stops are horrible. Really, that's their evidence.

10 - Proposer BYD has an uneven record

Listen to this hard-hitting language:

"The company is currently manufacturing electric buses for Metro" And yet, no complaints.

"they may very well make a great monorail" No argument here.

"it could be a stretch" It could, but do you have any evidence?

"BYD has sometimes over-promised..." Sometimes? Show me an organization that hasn't.

---

I wish Streetsblog would focus their voice and energy on the actual things that they'd like to change about the proposal, instead of waving around watery language and trying to strike the whole thing down. I've waited 32 years for an alternative to the 405. L.A. can't wait any longer.

In Defense of Triple (and Double!) Chain-sets

 

I have a 2001 Trek 5200 bicycle. It was state of the art in 1997, when Lance Armstrong rode the same frame - "120 grams" OCLV carbon fiber - to victory in the Tour de France. While Lance used Shimano Dura-Ace professional components, my bike has the pro-sumer Ultegra family.

And yet my bike is better than his was. Why? Because the Ultegra family included the (5600?) triple front chain-set. That is, it had 3 gears on the front derailleur, like a mountain bike, and so could climb (or descend) hills like its off-road brother, and I love to climb hills.

The "triple" always had a reputation as "cheating", but then again, you can build a drive-train to climb hills using any bike. The only difference is, with mine, I could pedal down those same hills. So the difference was only in convenience.

In the mid-2000s, cog-sets (the gears on the back wheel) with a higher count were introduced. My bike has 9 cogs in back, but now they had as many as 11. As they added more cogs, they could provide a broader gear range with only 2 chain-rings up front. Since more chain-rings is more weight, the triple chain-ring was phased out, relegated to the dustbin of history.

The trouble is, the people searching for this increased range entirely missed the point of the triple chain-ring.

What is the point? What do I like about the triple?

To understand the advantage of the triple, let's look at the opposite extreme: the "one by". The current "fad" in bicycling is to only have a single chain-ring up front - even on mountain bikes! - and have a wide range of gears in back.

The trouble with this arrangement is that, to transition from uphill to downhill, or vice-versa, which occurs often in hilly areas, you have click through a ton of gears. You could entirely lose your momentum while grinding through gears, trying to find the appropriate ratio.

I have a hill that I climb on my weekly training route. I attack the hill standing up, mainly to get some exercise of those muscles, but also as a small challenge or indicator of how I'm feeling that day.

When I transition to sitting, I simply flick the front derailleur from middle ring to small ring - 42 teeth to 30 - and I'm at the perfect ratio. I can then slowly progress up through the back cogs, towards the bigger cogs, as the hill gets steeper.

Whenever I crest a hill, I first flip back to middle ring. I can adjust the back gear too if I like. Then when I tip over the hill, I flip to big ring. Back on level ground? Flip back to middle ring. All these transitions only take a single flick, or even easier, a click.

One may argue that a shifter can actually shift up 2 gears at a time, so it's not that bad. I say "whoopee" (sarcastically). I would also point out that a shifter can only go *down* 1 gear at a time. All this time, you can't pedal.

Two Are Better Than One

The double chain-ring is better than the "one by", because it can at least change the front gear sometimes. Unfortunately, this may not occur at the most opportune times. For instance, you may be on level ground in big ring (because you just descended a hill) and about to climb a hill. You may have to flip to small ring *and* adjust the back gear to compensate. That's a lot of clicking, but you don't want to do that after you start climbing, right?

Conclusion

Sadly, the industry has moved on from road bikes with triple chain-sets. If I still want one, I have to track down one on e-bay or re-purpose a mountain bike drive-train. Thus, I will be hanging onto my old 5200 until it is crushed under a car or is stolen.

Does the market-place always make the best decisions? Does technology always advance? No. No, it does not.

Pedestrian deaths reach 27 year high

If you're going to blame pedestrians wearing headphones, why is it spiking now? Why are SUVs and heavy trucks suspiciously growing in the percent? Are SUVs magnetically attracted to headphones? And what about deaf people? Are they screwed by your conclusion?

Graph from Governor's Highway Safety Association

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/01/pedestrian-deaths-reach-another-high-drivers-entirely-to-blame/

"Ouch"

(no pun intended)

L.A. Adds Lanes For Bicyclists To Recover From Getting Hit By Cars

https://www.theonion.com/l-a-adds-lanes-for-cyclists-to-recover-from-getting-hi-1830940259

"There Will Be Blood"

(title and photo brazenly borrowed from the New York Times, thanks guys)

Has anyone considered, maybe she's colorblind?