Thank you for providing an honest and thorough review of our Powershift hub and sharing your insights into its efficiency. We genuinely appreciate your feedback!
I've never seen any transmission or any machine that is 99% efficient. My bottom brackets are two bearings and a shaft, they would struggle to get to 99% efficiency. I don't know how all that gear friction and so many bearings can be so efficient. Hats off to them if they have done it.
@@theillegalimmigrant9314 I don't think PT could have done a much better job in measuring it but there are a few things that make me sceptical. The first is the statement above, I've got a precision made bottom bracket with specific NTN bearings in it, that would struggle to get 99% efficiency because some of the energy is lost as heat and some additional losses caused by shearing of the grease. This classified hub is mass produced and claims 99% efficiency all day long. But like I said, if it's true, then well done to them. I just don't think this test is conclusive proof - the fact that any reading is ~99% would make me question it.
I got 98.7%* ( of *99.8% max efficiency of locked out Classified hub). What the ACTUAL on bike efficiency is of the whole drivetrain is practically impossible to pin down.
@@Hambini Any measurement values given, without at the very bare minimum an estimate of the error, are just something which I consider as attest for unseriousness. I can always give you 99% efficiency when remaining silent of the measurement error of 10%.
i'm still amazed that bike industry gets obsolate ideas from the drawer and make them work. we had press-fit cups for the thompson crankset, that was a very crappy proto-integrated thing. the first indexed shifters had the gears in the derailleur, now electronic shifting does the same. we had the sach commander hub, that worked just fine, but got forgotten (some of them even with drum brakes afair), then we have the classified hub.
For all those complaining that 99% efficiency is impossible, note absolute efficiency isn’t assessed. The comparison is between (A) baseline: the locked ratio 1:1 in 34X30 (B) reduction ratio (0.686) in 50X30. Result: as measured by total energy, the reduction ratio is 98.8% as efficient as the locked ratio. In other words, in support of the manufacturer’s claim, there is almost no efficiency loss using the reduction ratio.
I feel like if they were to SOMEHOW come to an agreement to integrate into Di2 or AXS, it would be more consumer-friendly rather than having an extra button when shifters could do the same
I bought a bike fitted with the hub/GRX 815 from the factory, so the shifting is nicely integrated with the left break leaver. What is annoying: in the Garmin 1030+, I can either display the Di2 shifting status, OR the classified, as they show up as independent ANT+ devices, and - which, logically, makes sense - Garmin accepts only one ANT+ shifting device... so, of course, I let the Di2 show up, and do it as usually: in flat terrain, "large" chain ring (~1:1), uphill, "small" chaing ring... so, yes, full integration into Di2 would be nice... and, no, I would never use this on a road race bike, nor on an MTB (where 1x12 works perfectly fine) - but for gravel, it is phantastic!
I can afford anything bike tech and or reach out to most brands and get it for free. I just can't go past sram mechanical or road rim brakes for the best performance and ease of cycling life. Im 46 and never had a drivers license. My 20 year old 5200 I can still easily and cheaply find spare parts for it on facebook marketplace. Even if I wrote the frame off I could get a near new one for 150-300AUD. It is insane how cheap the high performance bikes are now.
Classified should be thrilled with this video. I loved the idea but was extremely skeptical of their efficiency claims, and the only thing that would convince me would be independent efficiency testing, and here it is.
I was sceptical. A lot of people moaning about efficiency of 99% being impossible, its absolutely not. Just read some literature on gears. I am more concerned about the axle complete failure anyway!
Awesome work man. This is absolutely your niche on the interwebs. I still think classified (and to be fair to them, the mentality of the customer base they have to convince) are going about this wrong. Efficiency loss becomes meaningless if the trade-off of that loss is the difference between continuing to pedal up a climb vs having the hike-a-bike. Which is a frequent decision in a typical gravel race, at least here in the US. Road bikes are not the home for this product. And we have to consider the greater ecosystem. Tire clearances are increasing. Its faster on gravel. And when that 45-50mm tire isn't, the extra clearance allows for mud to pass without lowering efficiency there and oh btw not digging a hole in your f'n frame. So there's that. Those extra clearances came with the sacrifice of the front derailleur. We can debate whether that was necessary (I don't think so). We can argue roadies should suck it up when it comes to Q factor (I think they should). But, the world is what it is. And that's 1x gravel bikes with road (or road-wide) Q-factors. And I'm sane enough to recognize I will never be Keegan Swenson. If this hub allows the rest of us mortals to run a 48T chainring to speed on the open flats while still giving us the reduction to granny up that 20deg hill, instead of hiking (which, is slow AF), then this product is gold. Efficiency be damned.
Light bicycle have the hub shells now, I'm definitely going that route. One problem I found while using one of these wheelsets for a couple of weeks is that they used plastic spacers on the thru axle to make it adaptable to any frame width, and they creep over time. You tighten it, and by the end of the ride you can add almost half a turn to the lever on your thru axle.
rumor is they are developing a groupset with trp ( probably the same levers as trp pinion electronic version looks a lot like shimano ofc . Have seen 4/5 hubs getting play issues at a bike shop . and they had to sent them back at its a sealed unit .
well, as long as Shimano uses same old crappy usb port, fine for me (only one cable/charger needed for both). But, yes, indeed, USB-C would have been nice...
Re clamping force, time to test out the clamping force of a Maxle Ultimate, i.e. the lever-and-cam version. I actually had a fatbike variant machined down in length and had a M12x1 thread cut in it so I could fit it to a UDH hanger because I despise allen through axles so much...
Thanks for the amazing effort and feedback. However, I would love to know if and why you would recommend this system to a recreational rider, given that compared to a front derailleur it is; 1.) less efficient, 2.) non standard, 3.) significantly more complicated, 4.) heavier, and 5.) frighteningly expensive?
Classified are not licensing the hub shell, but they are suppling them to wheel brands, so there is actually quite a big choice, and you don’t have to have their wheels. At least that was the case, unless they’ve quietly pulled that.
I do feel like there is a lot of dead weight in the rear hub shell and the front hub. Would like to see what some of the good Chinese OEM factories could do with that... or Extralite.
The di2 integration addresses the not knowing which gear you are in. Big button for the .7 ratio, smaller button for 1:1. First proper ride today and is very very awesome.
@RyonBeachner You send your shifter to the (in my case UK) distributor who cut the wire from the lever buttons and solder on a Classified plug, which plugs into the bar end bluetooth transmitter. In my case, with GRX, the hood button still works and can connect with the rest of the di2 system via the usual di2 cable, but it effectively makes a dumb front mech only shifter which is separate to the rest of the di2 system. It is a very simple solution, but might be a bit more complex with non-GRX levers? Additionally I glued the remaining cut end of the original di2 wire to waterproof it, and re-routed the new Classified wire to follow the original di2 wire routing, which is a lot cleaner, but I'll feed this back to Windwave today. It took about a week including postage to and from. We (LOWMASS Wheels) have a trade account with them for hub shells, so I'm not sure of the pricing as a retail customer, but will check with them today.
@@BenDarnton Yeah, I’m not particularly fond of SRAM, but I’m tempted to frankenbike together a classified 1x system with Force shifters and hoods, Shimano chainring, shimano/classified cassette and Hope brakes. That way I can have RockShox AXS Dropper integration, without SRAM’s shifting or brakes.
Going to think good first mass public version for sale after years in initial designs, development, and testing. Then the second version should take care the problems of manufacturing, in use issues, chainline/other bike mechanical issues, wheel selections for customers that you and others reviewers are bringing up for a top notch product next version. Right now, very close to ideal for general use but not all the way there yet for highest level.
Thak you for doing this. It's awesome that someone is verifying manufacturer's claims like this and kudos for doing 330 W average for 5 min 8x in a row. I couldn't do that for sure. That said, you kinda understated the standard deviation of your measurement. Your result is 98.7 +/- 0.5 % from your numbers so you are basically consistent with the 99 % efficiency claim of Classified. I also think that their comment about the cross-chaining efficiency loss has merit, but with this precision, it is probably almost negligible.
The classified claim is 99.8% And the chainring can't get any farther to the left so that isn't a good excuse. The hub itself might not be the cause of the loss, but the whole system is inescapably experiencing that loss.
Big compliments to dig into this so conciously. I am an educated product designer and a prof. bike mechanic, enthousiast and fan of yr channel. I do regularly ride variuos systems: 1x12 to 3x8 deraillers, Pinions, 2v to 8v hubs. Occasionally Schlumpf and Rohloff. And single speed. Last is my fav. on flat, you can do a lot, super efficient, with one well chosen gear setting and a bit of trained legs ;-) So for me, a robust lean system is the better system. Less is more. Classified dared to create a kind of lean system to substitute a front derailler but the execution has become complicated, overly expensive, gets you into additional reliability issues and makes you dependent of them. They managed to create a close call with respect of weight and efficiency, but ask for huge sacrifices on other aspects. Not the premiss for a big success. May be they’ll have a better chance with a kind of oem version.
I agree, they should sell the shell so other companies can produce wheels and hubs. They've been marketing this to the Princeton Carbonwerks - Enve crowd, but offering a Farsports wheel. It's a fine wheel, but their early adopters and first customers are more likely going to turn up their noses at putting something so pleb on their steed. I was very skeptical about this technology, but this has changed my mind and will be a 2nd run adopter after they've refined things a bit.
Plenty of wheel manufacturers are offering the Classified Hub shell in their wheels. In July 2022, DT Swiss, Mavic, Fast Forward, ENVE, Reynolds, Boyd and Spinergy all announced they would begin making Classified-equipped wheelsets. Since then smaller brands such as Hunt and Light Bicycle are offering their wheels with the Classified Hub shell.
Disappointed about the water ingress problem you had. There goes my dreams of using it on a cross bike. Wouldn't last a race in the conditions we've had this season.
That's assuming no sweat evaporates from him and no carb/fat gets exhaled as water and CO2 (Which is how food is turned into useful energy at the muscles). He'll be getting lighter all the way through the test, even while drinking.
5:25 I feel like I may be missing something but isn't this already a thing? I know Hunt do wheelsets with Classified rear hub shells, and a quick google suggets you can buy hub shells on their own if your wheel manufacturer of choice doesn't make wheels with the hub shell
Yes, but the rims need to be drilled specifically for the large drive side hub flange. Lots of problems with this, including some Classified "approved" wheels...
i love 1x but I hate big cassette gears as they are prone to bending, i'd love this on my mtb and aero bike but the water ingress and unserviceable bearings make it a tough choice. tho you have to admit you'll look badass on 20% climbs with a 50x27 gearing and people not knowing you're actually in a smaller gear lol.
You are not comparing a like for like because the other end of the cassette will have a much worse efficiency, no? it might be 98% efficiency in preferential gears but the other end will be worse?
Pretty impressive test but what you’ve measured is relative efficiency not absolute that’s why your numbers are so high. if you’d done the same test with a normal arrangement derailleur and adjusted for weight then it would have been a better test. The loss between locked and unlocked is great but the comparison we want is the difference to a normal derailleur…..
Of course but thats impossible to do on the same bike back to back. When in 1:1 / locked, the classified is just like any Norma hub with 4 bearings. This has been tested In the lab to have the same efficiency as a Dt240 etc.
That's amazing! What a test effort! 👍 Especially when I compare this with Hambini's 30 sec doodles .... Thanks a lot for this. For a non professional and, as time has passed by, older generation road cyclist, a 1,x% loss is something I don't care about which I could easily compensate with other 'margials' gains 😂
Thank you for your feedback! We keep close track of quality and it is exceptional for a thru axle to fail. We will investigate this case thoroughly to see what happened here.
How did you isolate the hub-efficiency-data from the total-drivetrain-efficiency-date ??? I didn´t get it, sorry... I´d say, THEIR efficiency-number is for a straight chainline, since only then the loses can be easily calculated (or else, the crossed-chain-loses overshadow every other loss, turning it undetectable, even if the crossed-chain doesn´t induce losses elsewhere than in itself). Another point: I´ve never seen such controlled test-parameters, unless it was university-research in a Lab. But I think, I can figure a flaw still. You shouldn´t have tested on gravel, cause gravel is uncontrollable, while asphalt remains the same for decades. You can never guarantee, that every tiny piece of gravel was always at the same position, for each run. Also, you can make additional ABABAB-rounds pre-test, in order that the gravel sets in, along the gravel-line you drove, in other words, prepare the gravel-line before the actual test, by additional pre-test rounds.
Is there a way to use something like Assiama pedals to measure the power in, then measure power off the rear wheel and see the power drop between when the hub is locked and when it isn't?
Is it possible to replace the bearings in these hubs yourself? The manufacturer line is that you have to send it in for servicing, but wondering if it is possible to replace them yourself for TT optimisation
The water ingress is a total deal breaker. Any possibility of this happening is not something i want to sign up for. Imagine if a new Sram or Shimano di2 grupo had water ingress when tested by a reviewer???? They'd be dead in the water!
Cassettes are Recon - Taiwanese brand. They also do Campag stuff. As you say, super light and using very nice steel. But the Classified ones are super rough ... much worse than their own brand stuff.
good to know. recon always shifted a little bit less good than campa shim sram offering but decent. If these are worse it sucks for the price. maybe the asked a cheap version for themselves
I don't see the appeal of a planetary gearset in the hub with a cassette. You still have crosschaining and a derailleur. A two-by setup especially computer-operated is easier to use and we already have that. There is no need for a new fork end standard. If you want to use a planetary gearset just use a Pinion gearbox. There will be an electronic shifter for drop handlebars available next year. With this the chainline is always perfect and you can use a belt drive if you choose so. No rear derailleur can be bent as there is none.
Too easy to switch to a 1x system and ignore efficiency losses. Classified is just too expensive for the average punter, has too many rough edges, lacks full integration with frame interface and wireless systems. When they appear in world tour races, they will gain a niche market. Probably a market failure unfortunately.
I am not an engineer but if you were to put such a mechanism onto the crank shaft itself it could work but 2 or 3 things 1. It is cheaper to buy just hub/wheel which is 100% compatible with every bike than buying a special geometry frame to accommodate such big transmission 2. This transmission would increase length of chainstays therefore completely change the the ride feel etc. 3.we do not need another BB standard.
That product already exists - at least twice, the Hammerschmidt and the Schlumpf Drive both do this already. No electrics to go wrong in either of them too, but the Hammerschmidt setup weighs about as much as some road frames... I don't think either of them do a great job at dealing with the torque reaction from a gearbox at the cranks being a lot higher than the tightening torque to fit the BB in the first place though.
Chainring-cassette ratios do a torque reduction, so same-ish system in the crankset must be made for greater forces, be heavier and introduce even greater chain tension in speed reduction mode. Also will take place where a spider based powermeter could be. Loss on nearly all accounts.
If you want to shave +200 grams on that 11-34 cassette I know about a brand that make light weight parts (which have been used in racing at pro level).
What is the point of testing on gravel when pavement would have greatly reduced one source of error? The stdev of the results (in work) was a bit high. Also what is the point of replacing drunk/perspired water if you're just comparing work? Simply weigh your system before each rep. In any case it does seem that Hambini vastly overestimated the losses.
Awesome work with the testing! I would love to see a ridiculous road bike down hill over geared setup using the classified hub and a x2 combined to achieve a really big gear 'for science'.
I'm curious about the pro rider that used this in one of the classics, with a 64t 1x front ring, in terms of efficiency. I'd be on board with total integration, as in I can program my shifter to do it wirelessly. Another wire and button, annoying, it screams of being obsolete in a year when they figure it out and I'm stuck with it due to cost. Or they charge me for some upgrade module. Close, very close. Losing a front derailleur makes an aero gain possibly cancel out the efficiency loss.
As an engineer this was awesome to watch. Seems like you are measuring the difference in energy required to operate in the big vs small ring. Have you done the same test using the normal set up? For all we know the small ring is 97% efficient compared to the big ring and the classified is better…..or it’s 105% efficient and the classified is much worse.
Excellent presentation. If Classified wants to truly revolutionize shifting, they should publicly address your research or quietly implement your suggestions. Personally, I have been waiting for Classified to become the industry standard, but if they are choosing to ignore scholarship such as yours, I will stay with Di2…
A company that's thrown so much r&d at a niche product isn't going to make huge changes due to a relatively small RU-vid channel's suggestions. Only a fraction of potential buyers even know this channel exists
@@veganpottertheveganI believe it was social media channels that brought the Shimano chainring issue to light. That being said, the author of this video brought up a number of valid points that it would serve Classified well to offer a response. Just my humble opinion…
@mohawkin you mean the crank issue? I sent in multiple complaints running warranties for customers a while ago. As did many other shops. Also, Shimano isn't a niche company making products for a fraction of the population and their problem was a safety issue. Very different animals
16:45 You only need to add the water if you peed in between? Ideally weigh how much pee has come out and put that back (AS WATER! AS WATER!) in the water bottle
I would say the jury's out. This would be a unique outlier in terms of hub gear or gearbox systems. It looks far too high. Also that freewheel drag is freaking insane ... that's easy to get right and they crapped the bed on it.
That freewheel drag is normal now, but when new it was very noticeable. Something has definitely worn in, probably one of the larger bearing seals. For a description of the bearing see part 1.
Regarding measuring the losses... Wouldn't it make more sense to pedal at a set cadence in either gear (the difference betweent he two gears is 1/3 of a tooth, so ~1 rpm at 90 rpm for the same speed) and measure the power required to keep a given speed?
In this two-parter you highlighted most of the changes required for broad adoption. The big one you didn't address is groupset integration. Personally, I'm a SRAM guy, so I'll base my use-case example on that. Integrate this, lose the button, and give me the option of sequential shifting across all 24 gears...*along with* the other changes you suggest, and I MUST have this. Without integration the shortcomings you highlight, and the price of entry makes it very VERY interesting, but not a slam dunk for me.
@@PeakTorque Thanks. Perhaps best case scenario is SRAM buys Classified. It's not like they've never done that sort of thing before. Okay, so maybe that's not best case for Di2 users...
I just like the idea of not having to coax my shifting between the big and small rings… and knowing the price to get that insurance. I am a Luddite on mechanical shifting tho.
Great job with the descriptive statistics, but I'd like to also see some inferential statistics. You hinted at this when comparing the observed effect size to the standard deviations, but it would be much better if you also include an actual statistic like a 95% confidence interval. I expect that the range of the 95% CI would include the value claimed made by Classified that the losses are less than 0.8%. Presenting your 1.08% figure as a precise/accurate/perfect value is misleading. It's your best estimate, but it doesn't reflect the amount of inherent uncertainty.
I never said or mentioned that my figure was perfect, or mislead to that effect. I highlighted the error and uncertainty. I'm doing this for free. If a data scientist wants to pick this up then go ahead
@@PeakTorque I have some knowledge of inferential statistics, so here's my best attempt: You already give standard errors of the mean (SEM) in your table, which are 336 and 360 for the energy measure. The simplest way to do a 95% CI is to do +/- 1.96 * SEM, so using the average of the 2 SEMS, this gives +/- 681. The difference in the 2 conditions is 1101, so the 95% CI for this difference value is 420 to 1782; since the value is always positive then the observed difference is statistically significant (with a 5% Type II error rate). Converting this difference to a percentage in the way I believe that you did gives 0.41% to 1.74% as the 95% CI. Subtracting this from 99.8%, as you did, suggests that the 0.686 gear ratio is between 98.1 and 99.4% efficient, which includes Classified's claim of > 99.0%, so you cannot refute this claim. I'm not sure if some of the assumptions of these inferential tests have been violated here (e.g., statistical dependence or type of distribution) and I could have made a mistake in the calculations, but I'm reasonably confident that this range is a good representation of the amount of inherent uncertainty in the results. To have a smaller range, you'll need to do the experiment again with more test runs (very time consuming) or have less variance between the runs (which would be very hard to do because your methodology was very good).
hey so of us "tarts" see that as an advantage that runs and peds know we are coming... I have been yelled at for saying "rider", yelled at for not saying "rider", been told the ringing a bell is condescending and surprising... loud freehub nothing. don;t have to say something, and don't get yelled at - well aside from being on the trail at all.
Haha so true. Walkers are just angry, i got shouted at on the weekend because i was waiting behind a hiker going through a gate. When i then overtook he jumped. Then said, "fucking biker with no bell"!!! Only one bell out that day was him
@@PeakTorque ha, I had a similar situation happen with another mountain biker. Both of us crawling up a climb - no worries I can wait a second. He turns and sees me, and damn near fell off the bike yelling at me. I road of up the hill... Coming back to the road scene following knee surgery. Enjoying the technical dives on technology and products. Thanks for all the work you are putting in!
I was so enthralled with this and then that damn doorbell !😂. Chapeau to you good sir on the first proper review of Classified. As I’m really considering splurging
Outdoor tests are not reliable due to too many variables, which you mentioned. A better test would be in a controlled environment, even an indoor smart trainer would be better than outdoor rides. You could ride the same equip on the same trainer, with the same power meter and compare speed at a given power output or vice versa. From that it would be quite easy to measure losses from one system compared to the other.
You can't do that with a wheel off trainer because you remove the classified hub! And you can't do it with a wheel on power trainer as they're highly inaccurate in their power meters and the tyre friction varies hugely over time. So no.
Really enjoyed this series, fantastic engineering insight. Whilst I can’t see a use for this myself (yet) it’s still interesting to understand and seeing a real world test tells me it’s probably not worth worrying about the efficiency and more a case of focusing on the value it may add to your riding in other ways.
Thank you for this very informative experiment, truly well done. It’s a shame that Rohloff has yet to go with electronic shifting for non-e-bike applications. I hope if that day comes, then you’d consider a comparative experiment between them? After all, Rohloff was originally designed for off-road riding…
well, unfortunately, the inventor is dead now, really sad loss... I used to ride Rohloff from 2001 on; had it in 6 bikes, but, currently, with 1x12, the weight gain over a rear derailleur setting become more and more relevant, no true thru axle, and, yes, at some point in time, we MTB riders got promised a lighter version which would not last +100,000 km, but dramatically reduce the weight penalty. Indeed, initially, Rohloff focussed on the MTB market, but quickly learned that long-distance riders are more prone to choose them... second live was electric shifting - although terribly slow - for e-bikes. For off-road, Rohloff is pretty much dead (until a 3rd party buys the company/the patents...).
Fantastic content PT, many thanks! That looks like a Insta360 you’re using? Can I ask how you’re clamping it to your bars? (Their std offering doesn’t fit oval bars?)
I believe Classified will never do the internals only. Too great margin on the shell, smaller parts, multiple axles and the cassettes, of course Also, those centerlock nuts are from Campagnolo/Fulcrum if I remember correctly. Same diameter as a track/fixie lockring, but different thread pitch Lastly, the clever sprag clutch is unfortunately subject to wear. This spring had a chance to try out a bike with nearly 2yo hubs next to a new one (there was a fellow racer and the officials from Classified at the event) and shifting wasn't as smooth and instant anymore
@@PeakTorque I think we passed this stage last year. Now the partnership scheme is setup, flow of investments is stable, time to start paying dividends. Also it is never intended to dominate the market and actually kill the 2x, so supply for mass production is not necessary
Hello. Can you check the mechanical Crr against a DT Swiss or similar? All those gears cant be that efficient. What would be the net efficiency including Crr?
