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%.
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.
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!
loved these two videos, some plus points for classified from a really short person: Didn't want to ride 1by, but it was near impossible (or incredibly expensive) to fit a 2by system on a standard gravel bike that was compatible with the (some would say ridiculously) short cranks I need. Im quite short with even shorter legs and nothing worked, so the 1by system in the front with classified in the back saved my ass. Now I can ride the Rotor 1by Crankset and swapping that in is ridiculously easy :) just got myself a ridley kanzo fast with the classified hub system which I plan to take on bike packing trips through the alps etc.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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...
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 😂
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...
@PeakTorque some high end wheelbuilders have these hubshells readily available to be build in a set of wheels or have your wheels rebuilt with them. I had mine built by Wheel-Tec in The Netherlands.
Yes but i am talking about licensing out the hub shell to other hub makers who can make it lighter and more appealing to a wider audience. The hub shell is a simple part with no moving parts, just a large internal spline. Classified have not optimised this for weight IMO
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?
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 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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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!
When this was first announced i asked classified for the diagram for the hub shell so i could build it into a disc wheel. This system is really for 1x TT setups so not having a disc wheel is a no-go.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
stroke of genius to compare total work, quick question ( though I'm pretty sure would come up being not a 0th order factor here ), with total work comparison timing point should probably start and end when gradient are still steady ( later start earlier finish line ) other wise needing to count for system velocity delta. Was that where you draw the marker?
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?
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?)
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.
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.
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
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.
Amazing testing! I'm curious to see where this will go. Currently it looks like a very promising product. If they manage to get the small annoyances (integration into Di2/AXS, the torsion bar, water ingress) ironed-out, this might become a very mainstream product.
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
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.
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.
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.
Grizedale? Your chainline comments are interesting as to get the full range out of a classified setup you'd want to run a decent number of teeth up front, such as 46+, which would put the ring fairly outboard to clear the chainstay. Whereas on a 'standard' 1x (gravel) setup you'd be looking at a smaller ring, say 40t, which would sit more inboard. For me, Sram Axs XPLR 1x still has the edge.
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?
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).
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.
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.
The best grease for efficiency is marketing money. If enough of it was used even over 100% efficiency is very well within the realm of possibility.
Do you think this is legit?
@@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%.
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.
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!
What handlebars is he using on that bike?
Great to see Classified's efficiency claim stack up in the real-world test! Thanks for your dedication to the cause, PT. 💪🏼
loved these two videos, some plus points for classified from a really short person:
Didn't want to ride 1by, but it was near impossible (or incredibly expensive) to fit a 2by system on a standard gravel bike that was compatible with the (some would say ridiculously) short cranks I need. Im quite short with even shorter legs and nothing worked, so the 1by system in the front with classified in the back saved my ass. Now I can ride the Rotor 1by Crankset and swapping that in is ridiculously easy :) just got myself a ridley kanzo fast with the classified hub system which I plan to take on bike packing trips through the alps etc.
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.
Interesting take
great level of care and attention - very professional- thank you....please keep doing these longer videos/series to supplement the shorter stuff.....
Thank you! Will do!
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.
@PeakTorque maybe worth asking classified to fix this
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 .
cheap move indeed the plastics spacers. I don't like it either for headset part. cheap and not super secure.
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.
27:36 totally agree, the way this shifts instantly under full load is really impressive
had the same water issues not only with washing but also during a heavy rain ride already
1. Thanks for doing this deep dive into the hub
2. Thanks for adding a banana for scale.
3. I believe it is Breville green in North America
Wow, amazing work with the extensive testing and presentation of results. Thank you!
What an amazing series! Thank you so much for your time insights and "energy".
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.
@@proffatethe claim is between 99.0 and 99.8 (when in locked ratio, acting as a normal hub). 99.8 is consistent with the dt240 they claim.
15:35 if going to this level of test condition detail, atmospheric pressure should be recorded and any changes from start to finish.
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.
Love the information, very informative
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.
Damn. No one does thorough testing like this guy. And rides hard. Thanks you man from Japan!
I really appreciate you doing this testing! The hub has been interesting to me, & now I don't have to throw money at my own test!
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
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
not long it is coming
Aka SRAM buyout
There is Di2 support.
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!
Great video, protocol and data. Thanks
Great pair of videos! Thanks for the thorough testing and analysis!
Cheers bud. Was a pleasurable process.
Excellent piece of practical experimentation and analysis.
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 classified hub shell is heavy (the large dead part). It's easy for a hub manuf to optimise that part.
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...
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 😂
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...
There are a few bikes (Ridley and a few more) that have a splined peice rather than a torque arm which slots into a matching drop out...
@PeakTorque some high end wheelbuilders have these hubshells readily available to be build in a set of wheels or have your wheels rebuilt with them. I had mine built by Wheel-Tec in The Netherlands.
Yes but i am talking about licensing out the hub shell to other hub makers who can make it lighter and more appealing to a wider audience. The hub shell is a simple part with no moving parts, just a large internal spline. Classified have not optimised this for weight IMO
Great review and outstanding ending!:)
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?
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'.
Great suggestion!
Great insight and review! Will you be getting a Powershift disc rear wheel to test on the TT bike?
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.
Are you allowed to use Campagnolo Super Record Wireless shifters and chain rings and rear derailleur and chains with classified Powershift parts?
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?
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?
Does anyone know where he records this specific ride? it looks absolutely beautiful really wanna add it to my list of places to ride
11:42 what’s that rotor?
One of my prototypes
rotor looks sick
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.
Campanaerts. AFAIK he's quietly stopped running Classified in its entirety, not just the crazy 64T setup.
Curious? He was walking up the muur. Says it all
imagine the amount of work
well done
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
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!
When this was first announced i asked classified for the diagram for the hub shell so i could build it into a disc wheel. This system is really for 1x TT setups so not having a disc wheel is a no-go.
Its definitely coming. Possibly.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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 work on the test protocol.
Thank you! Cheers!
So what i take from this is,there is not point changing over to classified apart from if you are using 105 shimano.
What would them prevent them from putting this system into the crankset? Wouldn’t that solve a lot of issues?
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.
@@OVOCNYCHECK there is such a system, it's called the schlumpf drive, but I believe it's no where near as efficient as this, but it's pretty cool.
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.
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.
Good points!
@@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...
The crime isnt the water ingress, its the micro usb port
both
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...
@@Robeuten Shimano usb port?
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.
Using fewer sig figs while presenting your data would help massively with legibility.
Excellent!! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
stroke of genius to compare total work, quick question ( though I'm pretty sure would come up being not a 0th order factor here ), with total work comparison timing point should probably start and end when gradient are still steady ( later start earlier finish line ) other wise needing to count for system velocity delta. Was that where you draw the marker?
Sorry for the slow reply. Exactly right. Start and finish lines were on a steady gradient. I didn't use the whole climb, about 40% of it.
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?
Watch part 1. Covered at the end. Test against dt240 when in 1:1 no gears are moving so like a normal hub.
When freewheeling and commenting re being draggy, did that manifest, turning the cranks?
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?)
Its a carbon pole attached to the underside gopro mount of the out front Garmin mount
I am thinking on getting some Parcours wheels. I think these are well made but not widely known.
You will love those wheels!
You taking inspiration from Jack Miller/ Wyaat Earp?...just a need a cowboy hat on now🤠.... distracted me that much I forgot what the vid was about😂😜
Cool test, very interesting even for such a luddite and non-technically minded like me :)
Cracking location looks to me. Where was it?
Cheers!
I.
Do I understand you correctly that this is only compatible with anything but flatmount brakes?
What level of $$$ is the cassette to replace? I'm thinking SRAM Force/Dura-Ace money for another one.
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.
How does the DI2 integration work? I can’t find any information about it online.
@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 Very interesting. Is there similar integration with SRAM blips by chance?
@RyonBeachner Sorry I'm not sure. SRAM AXS didn't last long on my bike, the 12s was terrible in our local mud...
@@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.
Why did you refill any water consumed, it would still have been part of the system mass, unless you weighed yourself each run
At least 1 person was in it for the joke. Well spotted 🎉😊
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.
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
well done
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.
You could drop over 100g from it and have it be significantly less poorly machined, and have it anodized.
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.
@@pmcmpc its painted ? shite then. I hate painted hub .
Amazing testing! I'm curious to see where this will go. Currently it looks like a very promising product. If they manage to get the small annoyances (integration into Di2/AXS, the torsion bar, water ingress) ironed-out, this might become a very mainstream product.
Glad to hear I'm not the only ape that grabs gears that I'm already in.
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 had a recon cassette for shimàno hubs years ago...was alloy from memory
@@glennoc8585 possible. they do have steel cromo one piece also ...
will classified be seeing this video? Like the idea of longer torque arm to the front bolt shall we. There i go talking like a brit.
8x5 @ 330w 🫡😜
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.
@@PeakTorque Possibly rollers with a resistance unit and power meter crank-based or pedals could work?
is that Hambini in the intro sound?
Yes
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.
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.
Grizedale? Your chainline comments are interesting as to get the full range out of a classified setup you'd want to run a decent number of teeth up front, such as 46+, which would put the ring fairly outboard to clear the chainstay. Whereas on a 'standard' 1x (gravel) setup you'd be looking at a smaller ring, say 40t, which would sit more inboard. For me, Sram Axs XPLR 1x still has the edge.
Agreed. Still limited by chainline and where to put the ring!
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?
The same 30T on the cassette is used each time, he's changing the front chainring.
Maybe do a follow up using same test protocol at 5k km, or earlier if it seems like it's wearing.
Thanks for your hard work! How would a Shimano Alfine compare?
much heavier. not at all the same purpose
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).
Why dont you test it on the indoor trainer?
You'll put a lot of variables away
Maybe PTfile is talking about gear efficiency when he claims 98 or 99%? Anyway, the Noble prize goes to...ah, sorry, it is given only to scientists ;)
Brilliant
seems like a great place to conceal a hub motor, just saying
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.
Regular jetwashing since March and mine has been fine 👍
@@BenDarnton that's good to hear. Thanks
Our colleague is riding cyclocross with the Powershift hub here in Belgium, and it's definitely cross proof!
Nice location. Where are you?
Brexitland
@@PeakTorque lol. Same here. Wondered if it was Kielder
Not far, grizedale@@jdh895
will you be able to rebuild it into a different wheel?
Only if the rim spoke holes are drilled specifically for the Classified spoke angles, otherwise is problematic...
can i use this hub for a brompton?
no
This mofo did indeed enjoy this. But most importantly, thankyou for going to all the effort. Very much appreciated.
At first glance the measurement error seams higher than the measured difference of efficiency.
Nice work but I don't think the classified system will take off.
I hope it does as broad adoption would lead to refinements that iron out the pain points before I finally buy it
@@proffate yea its still in the beta cuck stage, lets see what happens. i wonder how long they last and do they need servicing?
The chainring argument holds _generally_, because you are ruining fewer gear combinations by aiming for the middle of the cassette.
How do you prove 99% power efficiency when your power meter has a +-1% accuracy?
time averaging, and using the same power meter for all tests
Accuracy and repeatability are different. And as pointed out, thats why you do repeats.