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

@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.

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

I know exactly what cross chaining is thanks.

Sticking to the 3/4 largest sprockets in the small ring (of two) is ridiculous on a 10+ sprocket cluster. At least 6 or 7 of them should be useable and perfectly safe to do so.

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 thoug

Hammerschmidt was seriously heavy – about 1.5kg. Yes, that effectively included a bashring but still a big lump.

It might be expensive but I’m pretty sure Classified’s pitch is that their system adds very little weight (partly as their expensive cassette is really light)

Cool tech but ultimately pretty pointless

On an mtb a 1x system works perfectly well

On a road bike I’ve never once thought my front mech was a particular issue.

On a gravel bike, 1x does for me, if I wanted more range or tighter gears I’d go 2x. Other than looking slightly better than a front mech I fail to see the point.

There may be a tiny aero advantage, but it will be a couple of watts at most, probably offset by the drive chain losses.

Also…it’s 2.5k😂😂

Also…it’s 2.5k😂😂

Only if you want a battery and Shifter…

Also…it’s 2.5k😂😂

Only if you want a battery and Shifter…

Pretty sure the 2.5k is for a pair of carbon wheels with the extra Classified stuff. Not cheap at all, but tbf a pair of carbon wheels would be 1k or so on their own just for a basic set

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

I know exactly what cross chaining is thanks.

Fair enough @mert, from your first comment I wasn’t sure if you had but sorry for the misunderstanding

Pretty sure the 2.5k is for a pair of carbon wheels with the extra Classified stuff. Not cheap at all, but tbf a pair of carbon wheels would be 1k or so on their own just for a basic set

yes it is tbf, and viewed in that context it’s not so bad. So probably the best part of 1200 quid over and above what you’d be paying already assuming you are using similar standard components

Still don’t see the point, but then again I have all kinds of pointless gimmicks across my bikes, so never say never..

Oh look, SRAM Dual Drive!

I have one on a Bike Friday. Three speeds in the internal hub gears, seven on a conventional cassette (up to 9 is possible, maybe more these days?) Controlled by a combo unit with gripshift for the derailleur and thumb paddle for the internal gears.

Having actually ridden a classified hub on a gravel bike, I can confirm you’d not know whether you were in the direct or reduction great through any resistance in the system. It really is that effective.
In fact, I found myself often switching hub gear to work out which I was in…

IME it’s a good product for gravel and road, not sure I’d bother on MTB though, for a number of reasons.

could you go on a bit @hungrymonkey? as some-one who’s actually used it, it would be great to hear your thoughts on why you think it’s not for MTB particularly.

I tried it in Flanders last year, albeit on their rollers set up as they were not available for a proper ride. To be fair, I was rather intrigued by it and really like the way it felt. I’ve been itching to test one on the gravel bike when it was launched but there was not the availability of a gravel version…..until now.

@chipps

Happy to test it for the website if you fancy? After all, I suspect that I am probably the only one who still rides 2 x on his mountain and gravel bikes and has yet to suck at the teat of 1 x. I wonder if this could be the system to abandon my front derailleur. The VYRO chainset came close but ultimately did not prove reliable longer term in Scottish filth. The first couple of winters were fine then the shift tabs started to break and the company no longer trades.

Cheers

Sanny

Mostly weight distribution tbh. I want to minimise unsprung mass on a FS bike, and I’ve memories of a (heavier, to be fair) rohloff murdering the handling of a bike I used to have.
I’m also not convinced I’m so fussed about close ratio gears on a MTB, whereas I prefer them on my gravel bike – as such a 10-52t range works fine for me on MTB.
The gravel bike has a 514% range (I think) with the closer ratios of an 11-34t (edit) cassette. Good on the road sections but also nice and low for steep tech climbs or bike packing.
I can see the potential appeal on a race HT, destined for flatter courses – perhaps a reflection of the classified’s Dutch origins… But that’s not my bag.

sillyoldman
Full Member

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.

Discernable being the operative word- there’s no discernable drag with a well maintained chain either, mostly because chains are very efficient but also because humans are not precision measuring equipment and there’s so much else going on. For things to be actually reliably noticable, you need drag like you’re pedalling porridge. Which, to be fair, some drivetrains do manage to deliver but they’re not useful comparisons once you get into stuff that isn’t making that sort of big sacrifice.

thols2
Full Member

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.

If you can use the whole cassette with the middle ring, how does that add up to everything except the inner few sprockets having a “terrible chainline”? The inner ring is about 1-and-a-half cassette sprockets further to the inside, the chainline on the third-from-outside sprocket is better in the inner ring than the chainline on the outside sprocket and middle ring.

BITD crossover chainlines really were that bad, but it’s something that got less and less an issue as time passed and chains especially but also shifting got better. There’s a reason that people still threw out chainline as an argument against single ring, when it was first getting popular, but only til a bunch of people had tried it and found how trivial it really was, progress had quietly happened. Big cassettes and multiring still have extra challenges with chainlength of course.

The small ring was intended only to be used with the inner few sprockets on the cassette, otherwise you have a terrible chainline.

No it wasn’t. And no you don’t.

Even on 3×6 it was perfectly possible and practical to use 4 or 5 of the 6 sprockets from the small ring.

Though i’ve seen this factoid propagated by people who should know better over the years.
They mostly don’t seem to understand how gears work (either derailleurs, chain drive or overlapping ratios, or all three).

No it wasn’t. And no you don’t.

Even on 3×6 it was perfectly possible and practical to use 4 or 5 of the 6 sprockets from the small ring.

This ^^

The main issue with cross chaining was little to do with chainline itself and more to do with catching the outer plates of the chain against the inner teeth of the big ring when attempting to use small-small and the potential for ripping the mech off when using big-big because in the days of 3×7, 3×8 etc, rear mechs had far lower capacity than modern mechs.
Also modern 11/12sp chains are far thinner and so far more flexible than the old 7/8sp chains which were much thicker and much less tolerant of being flexed sideways.

A modern 1x or 2x system has no issues with cross-chaining at all, it’s one of those annoying myths that gets propagated alongside “campag wears in, shimano wears out” and “steel is real”.

Discernable being the operative word- there’s no discernable drag with a well maintained chain either

I used Classified wheels on my gravel bike for a year, and so am pretty familiar with them.

On MTB stuff, I noticed drag when I first fitted M8000 11 speed 1x when in 32/42, until I spaced the chainring in a few mm to improve chainline, so in my experience, chainline inefficiencies are discernable, whereas the Classified reduction gear is not. M8000 was all new, but until ring was spaced in, I couldn’t feel the shift in ratio from 2nd to 1st due to drag.

For those suggesting it’s similar to other IHG with cassette options – try it, it really isn’t.

Mine were samples which I’d have liked to have kept, but as has been mentioned, they’re not cheap, so when the time came, I handed them back and stuck my old set up back on.

Not affiliated with Classified BTW – just have a fair bit of 1st hand experience of it.

Dunno what I’ve done to the quote function – it appears the wrong way round, but I’m sure you get the gist!

No it wasn’t. And no you don’t.

He’s right you know. Think about it logically……a double chainset has 5mm between the centres of the two rings. A single ring chainline is nearly always at the half way point between the two. On a 10 or 11spd cassette the distance between the centres of the teeth is a hairs breadth below 4mm. So the angle of the chain in the smaller chainring and the 2nd from top sprocket (2nd smallest) is only a little bit worse than the large chain ring to top (smallest) sprocket. And the smaller chainring to the third from top (third smallest) is substantially BETTER than large chainring to top (smallest) sprocket. Then compare to 1X – smaller chainring to second from top (2nd smallest) sprocket is a better chainline than a 1x in top gear (or bottom gear come to that). Then add the 26inch to 29er factor – longer chainstays reduces angles and minimises the problem further.

The millions of miles of 1X now covered with users using the full range of the cassette (arguably more than ever due to the reduced gear range available) with no massive wear issues and swathes of snapping chains should probably have put the cross chain issue to bed as arguably overdone back in the day. For me the biggest issue was getting front mech not to rub yet shift cleanly.

But having said all that….I’m not planning on going back from 1X off road now. Planning on touring 1X too this summer. My issue is there is too much machismo with the top end gearing on bikes for mere mortals – most of us could solve any gear range issues with 1x systems by increasing the size of the lowest sprocket or reducing the chainring size. (convert – now only putting out an FTP of 290w and very happy with 50x13t too gear on his best road bike and running a 36T 1X on his gravel.)

errr…. pinion?
Better solution surely? when frame builders start jumping on the train.

errr…. pinion?
Better solution surely? when frame builders start jumping on the train.

Much heavier and ties you into one frame.

The advantage of this is that the bike remains basically the same. If you put in a regular rear wheel, it’ll still work as a 1x and you can also change the frame and just transfer everything across.

Better solution surely?

Gaps between the gears are massive.
V low POE in the pinion freehub, regardless of what your hub has.
Gripshift isn’t for everyone (and trigger options have their own issues).
No shifting under power.
Weight (even though it’s placement is optimised).

I get they have their fans, and I like them in specific circumstances, but not as a catch all MTB drivetrain.

And pinion feels like soup in comparison… Part of the advantage of the classified system.

On the efficiency front, no system that’s poor is gonna be used in the pro peleton, but the classified has already been used in the classics and is due to appear in the TdF apparently. Totally different to any other IGH system out there in terms of performance

convert – now only putting out an FTP of 290w and very happy with 50x13t too gear on his best road bike and running a 36T 1X on his gravel.

I was doing the odd prem and a bit of elite racing on the continent on 53×12 or 13.
Not these days though, i’m 50% heavier and only got 2/3rds of the FTP…

Through manufacturers seem to think i need a bigger gear these days than i did in them days.

On the road, it has replaced the front mech like for like in gearing terms. But on mtb we have for the last few years settled on a linear big block cassette.
I said on the other thread – this only has benefit if we can use a short(er) cage mech.
All their proprietary cassettes AIUI seem to be 12 speed. All mtb 12 speed mechs are massive. And if you still have to use them, any advantage is lost.
Should we be using road/gravel mechs? Will they be robust enough?
I can see the advantage for the enduro racer (or enthusiastic enduro amateur) in having a small block and mech on the rear for stages, and being able to dump a handful of gears without pedalling if they mess up.
I guess with enduro bikes getting closer to DH bikes every year, there’s also the fringe benefit that you can take out your classified wheel and pop in a regular rear wheel for DH or bike park.

Should we be using road/gravel mechs? Will they be robust enough?

I used to run SS road mechs exclusively back in the day as they were cheaper than mid cage (ie. XT) mtb mechs. I remember crushing a 105 under my chainstay on a wall and it never missed a beat.

So yes, road is perfectly fine for mtb use. Or was at any rate.

The main issue with cross chaining was little to do with chainline itself and more to do with catching the outer plates of the chain against the inner teeth of the big ring when attempting to use small-small and the potential for ripping the mech off when using big-big because in the days of 3×7, 3×8 etc, rear mechs had far lower capacity than modern mechs.

The main issue for me is that the smaller ring puts a lot more force on the chain due to the increased leverage (a 22 tooth ring will give 145% more chain tension than a 32 tooth ring). Once you get past the middle of the cassette, the chainline starts getting more and more extreme, so you’re likely to snap your chain if you stand up and hammer or miss a downshift under power. Sure, you can still pedal the bike when it’s cross-chained, but if you’re going fast enough to need to cross-chain, you’re better off shifting to the middle ring. Aside from stressing the drivetrain less, it’ll stop the chain from flapping around so much.

The original point I made was that the supposed inefficiency of a small ring is really only going to happen if you’re cross-chained. If you keep the chainline fairly straight, a planetary gear system is not going to have the claimed efficiency benefit over a double ring setup.

Interesting video analyzing the losses from Peak Torque. Seems like he quite likes it.

EDIT: for me, I think the price is still just a bit too much to swallow.