A close look at Classified Powershift. Two-by is back!

Why ? Maybe because 1x really is The Emperor's New Clothes after all 🤔

Anyway, I'm looking forward to getting one of these on my old Stumpy so I've got 54 gears to choose from 😁

Hardly new, GCN did a video review of this about 2 years ago. Though I've not heard much about it since.

The Classified Powershift system will be around €2699 for all that

Hardly new,

It's new for mountain bikes.

I wonder if a better setup would be something like a 8 speed wide ratio cassette (11-50 or something) then use the power shift to do the small gears in-between? It would avoid lots of overlapping gears that wY

There seems to be an extra digit on that price, 2699 aint gonna be a big seller tbh, regardless of how good it is.
I do think the idea has merit tho

It is basically a hub gear that you can mount a cassette on.

Sturmey Archer have done that for years, and at a 10th of the price.

Sturmey Archer CS-RK3 3Spd F30 Cassette Hub

I dare say it is a fair bit heaver, you will need a cable shifter, and it is bolt through rather than quick release, but for £120 vs €2700 I will forgive some shortcomings. It even has 6 bolt disc brake mounts!

It’s still a 12 speed cassette
So you will still need a long cage, heavy, 12 speed mtb mech attached to the rear of the bike which negates most of the benefits.

Can someone explain to the hard of thinking amongst us how this is in any way better than either a front mech or a Hammerschmidt?

@kuco

He looks absolutely delighted with it 🤣

2700 EUR is for the full setup with a carbon rear wheel and cassette. From memory it's not too far off other top end bike part pricing (xx1 axs etc)

Cost aside, I can see a use for it on road where having close gear ratios is the main reason why 1x hasn’t taken off.

Struggling to think of a use case at all for MTB. Does anyone really need close ratios on their MTB?

Edit: thinking about it, this would rule on a gravel bike.

I think it could also be great on a more touring orientated road bike.

Seen a few of them fitted to mega money road and gravel bikes, that look ace with a single front ring, that’s the main market for these I think, they’re just dipping a toe into MTB to see if there’s any takers. Not sure there will be.

2x is back you say? For some of us, it never went away. Still riding several 2x 11 speed road/gravel bikes and several 3x 9 speed touring and MTB bikes.

It only went away in the blink of a Marketeers eye...

it can make a recordable time difference to a tight singletrack loop

But all the cool kids said 1x was better?

Does anyone really need close ratios on their MTB?

Downhill riders...

...yeah, exactly.

It'd be better if they could integrate it with Di2 and AXS to make proper sequential gear selection, for right nice bikes. Too expensive for 99% of us, even the 2by or hub gear gang.

It’d be better if they could integrate it with Di2 and AXS to make proper sequential gear selection,

I *think* that is being worked on, with AXS anyway.

The problem hear, other silly costs, is it looks like it doesn’t support a 10 tooth sprocket

The idea that a very expensive hub and 11-42 cassette is 530% gearing only 10% more than 1x12

The ratios are of course closer. But a 38-10 would do the same thing but you’d get a derailleur that was bit further off the ground and a bit lighter

One of their focuses is efficiency, so they actively avoid 10T sprockets.

One of their focuses is efficiency, so they actively avoid 10T sprockets

I kind of get that. But I think off road that might be missing the point. In MTB races Drive Train damage is common and no one is spending very long at that end of the block.

One of their focuses is efficiency, so they actively avoid 10T sprockets.

But use a planetary gear system.

Yes - with less efficiency loss than any other. That’s partly why it’s only 2 speed.

Efficiency is one of its benefits. You can spend more time in the best chainline area of the cassette by using the hub shift - better chainline is more efficient - esp when using the bigger ring sizes that the system encourages.
Might struggle in MTB market as efficiency isn’t a prime consideration for many - lots of 28x 10-50/1/2 drivetrains in use.

The other issue in MTBs is compatibility with a big enough chainring to reap the benefits. 38/40T would be useful, but few frames have clearance for that these days.

Not an issue on road/gravel.

Efficiency is one of its benefits. You can spend more time in the best chainline area of the cassette by using the hub shift – better chainline is more efficient – esp when using the bigger ring sizes that the system encourages.

You do know you can do that across an entire cassette using multiple rings up front?

You do know you can do that across an entire cassette using multiple rings up front?

Some frames won’t accept a front mech nowadays.

sillyoldman
Full Member

Efficiency is one of its benefits. You can spend more time in the best chainline area of the cassette by using the hub shift – better chainline is more efficient – esp when using the bigger ring sizes that the system encourages.

I bet you three scottish pounds that any chainline efficiency gains are more than outweighed by the planetary. Yes it's more efficient than most, but drivechain losses are titchy.

I bet you three scottish pounds that any chainline efficiency gains are more than outweighed by the planetary. Yes it’s more efficient than most, but drivechain losses are titchy.

I'm not sure that it is planetary. No idea how they're doing it but all the reviews I've seen (including this one by Chipps) suggests that there's no discernible drag in the lower ratios which sounds rather unlike a planetary.

Classified have been quite tight lipped about the actual workings of the hub.

I’m not sure that it is planetary.

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

[url= https://i.postimg.cc/P5S08Xkp/Screenshot-20230424-065340.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/P5S08Xkp/Screenshot-20230424-065340.pn g"/> [/img][/url]

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

and? Not that I could give less of a **** what he thinks.

It only went away in the blink of a Marketeers eye…

Aye, every single development in anything that one doesn't like, is always 'just' marketing.

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

Does anyone actually give a single shit about what that idiot clappers on about?

I bet you three scottish pounds that any chainline efficiency gains are more than outweighed by the planetary. Yes it’s more efficient than most, but drivechain losses are titchy.

There’s no discernible drag at all. They claim that the reduction gear has less efficiency loss than using the inner ring that the hub mimics on a 2x system.

I wonder if a better setup would be something like a 8 speed wide ratio cassette (11-50 or something) then use the power shift to do the small gears in-between? It would avoid lots of overlapping gears that wY

I like that. With the internal gear shift being so fast I think that could work really well.

I built a recumbent up with the sturmey 2 speed setup a few years ago to get over some terrible chainline issues whilst keeping the jumps manageable (recumbents need an extraordinary gear range to work well on the flat and get up hills).

On MTB I can see it might be a thing for xc bikes. 1X definitely freed up suspension design so I guess this could give you a tighter cassette and still have access to some lower gears. Gravel too I guess for those with super deep pockets.

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

I forced myself to sit through that one because of interest in the product itself and after the sexist misogynist egomaniac had drivelled on for a while he finally admitted never seen one, never used one and was getting all his info off their website then leaping to his own conclusions about how it worked in order to give it a "Hambini Roasting".
The guy is a complete 🔔🔚

I forced myself to sit through that one

Not all heroes wear capes.

I'm excited to make a dinglespeed XC/monstercross bike with one of these, as they are also bringing out a hub shell with a short, shimano-splined freehub fitting (see page 10)

I'm kind of blanking out the price though. Not sure I can stomach it if it's more expensive than a Rohloff

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

and?

And it's a planetary gear hub.

There’s no discernible drag at all. They claim that the reduction gear has less efficiency loss than using the inner ring that the hub mimics on a 2x system.

"They" being the people trying to sell it? On a 2x system, you should only be using the inner ring on the largest 3 or 4 cogs so chainline isn't an issue. I would be very surprised if a smaller chainring alone made enough of a difference to make it less efficient than a planetary gear system.

It only went away in the blink of a Marketeers eye…

Aye, every single development in anything that one doesn’t like, is always ‘just’ marketing.

Charming.

We'll see. Give it 10 years and see if you can still get their proprietary (very expensive) cassettes. See how well it worked out for Hope?

On a 2x system, you should only be using the inner ring on the largest 3 or 4 cogs so chainline isn’t an issue. I would be very surprised if a smaller chainring alone made enough of a difference to make it less efficient than a planetary gear system.

Whut? Why?

What's wrong with your bike that means you can only use 3 or 4 largest sprockets?

Or is this one of those "everyone knows" that is so popular amongst those who don't know?

@mert, you can, but it's not ideal
https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/workshop/cross-chaining/

What’s wrong with your bike that means you can only use 3 or 4 largest sprockets?

The middle ring on a triple ring setup is normally aligned with the center of the cassette. You can use the full range of the cassette using the middle ring. The small ring was intended only to be used with the inner few sprockets on the cassette, otherwise you have a terrible chainline. Because the inner ring is much smaller, it put much more stress on the chain (because you have more leverage) so you're likely to snap the chain if you stand up and mash on the pedals with the chain crossed from small ring to small end of the cassette. Even if you don't snap the chain, you'll still wear things out much faster.

I run 2x on most of my bikes. The same thing applies as with a 3x system - you only use the small ring for extremely steep stuff using the bottom half of the cassette. Once you get into the middle of the cassette, you should be shifting back to the large ring.

I run 2x on most of my bikes. The same thing applies as with a 3x system – you only use the small ring for extremely steep stuff using the bottom half of the cassette. Once you get into the middle of the cassette, you should be shifting back to the large ring.

I am aware that in smallest chainring + smallest 2 sprokets my chain can get noisier, and the reverse largest chainring and largest two sprockets it also gets noisier. Used to happen with 3x. This is 'crossing the chain' and something I tend to try to shift the front as it happens - so yes it is a bit of a 'thing'.

I still wonder at the cost and weight this is how much advantage it gives over a standard front mech and 2x chainrings.
Or indeed how it compares to a Hammerschmidt (or perhaps needing a new version of). As I understood a Hammerschmidt was planetary gears and was generally not liked...I only rode a hundred metres on one though.

always the Schlumpf Drive:

schlumpf drive - Home - schlumpfdrive - ultraflat Planetary Gear for Bikes

various versions for different applications.

@tomhoward yeah I don't understand why some don't. Cotic Cascade being a prime example, having the mounts for p-clips to a side pull mech like the Solaris is a no brainier and yet...

If I'm on an all day tour I want a granny, no ifs or buts, I am either not going to make it up a 20%er or not going to get a decent speed on the flats without a second ring on the front.

From what I understand of Hammerschmidt it's basically a front Alfine so I can see why people wouldn't like it. At least it's easier to keep in 1:1 though.