Bike Hugger 

Yippee! Retrogrouches have been making these themselves for years—[I think this is one of them](http://www.flickr.com/photos/huggerindustries/2787049421/)—and one of the reasons, we even considered a Melvin and later toggling [the Modal](/tag/modal) to Nexus is for the hills and varying terrain.

I don’t know, I think the hippsters (and others) will stay away. It seems that part of the point of riding a fixie is that it isn’t always easy. Might as well get a geared bike if you want gears.

hippsters are trend followers, it will not be long before they give up their bikes for the next big “thing”. the 3-speed hub is “geared” towards the true cyclist that will be around as long as they are capable of riding. i think this hub is a great idea, especially for commuters.

Well that’s fashion v. form/function right? And I hope the industry is noticing that cyclists are making their own drivetrain choices—modding to fit what they want. Meaning: fixed was made from parts bins, guys were finding old Sturmey hubs, etc. The first manufacture to get an internal-gear, enclosed drivetrain (not a belt) with drop bars will win. Like what I was popping off about a cross drivetrain—3 speeds, two rings. Why is that hard to engineer?

not sure what you mean my “fixed was made from parts bins”, since the explosion on the street is more related to trickle-down fashion from bike messengers, who got trickle-down tech from track racers.

i think the only hipsters who will glom onto these are the ones who are cyclists first, hipsters second.

@C,

Sorry that wasn’t a complete thought—I’ll restate that as the messengers were making these bikes themselves from parts bins and that’s what trickled down and the industry responded. Now, dudes are making drivetrains with Melvin’s or Godspeeds and dropbar Nexus—I’ve even seen Alfine with Rohloff.

And I just confirmed that there was a 1 x 9 cross drivetrain, back in the 70s ridden by Harry Phinney. It was a Sturmey 3-speed internal hub with a 3-speed external attached to it. It worked with a Benelux derailleur and Cyclo freewheel.

My point is like fixed riders, urban cyclists are modding they’re own drivetrains and the industry is eventually going to notice. If this Sturmey works like I think it does, where it’s fixed and/or freewheel, that’s awesome and I’ll put it right onto my travel bike.

The steps between the gears are far too wide!  Most fixed riders run between 65” and 80”.  I ride 74”.

I think a lot of present fixed riders would want it about this narrow: 80”, 70” and 60”.  The way they’ve described looks like 80”, 60” and 50”.  I’d be missing the 70” that is closest to the fixed standard and have a 50” that I rarely even use on my derailer bike.  The wide ratio they propose works for city bike like the Electra Amsterdam, not this.

One thing more: you don’t need the very low gear inches to climb a hill that you do with a freewheel.  Any fixed rider knows this, although it’s a bit involved to explain.  I can climb hills on my 74” fixed that I’d need to shift down to 60” on my derailer bike.  60” fixed ought to be low enough for anything short of loaded touring in the mountains: as good as 46” freewheel.

@james - a couple things.  You can pick whatever ring/cog combo you want, so getting the 74 as the middle gear is certainly possible.

As for climbing in a 74.  I certainly could climb my hill in a 74 (approx 53-19), but I wouldn’t want to.  My climb is over a mile and ~6%.  I’ve grown fond of my knees and I’d like to keep them.

i agree that the ratios are too wide.  my ideal set-up would be something that would equate out to a 84/93/100% ratio off of whatever cog i wanted to mount.

i ride pretty small gears in seattle, like 64”.  in florida, i often ran 57” and sometimes 52” for spin training, but in seattle it’s not much fun to ride at cadences above 180rpm on long downhills. 

either way, i don’t see this hub opening up a new world of fixed gear touring, nor is its complexity or weight going to cause a revolution among messengers and their imitators.  sunrace may as well focus on making it a bit more performance-oriented.  besides, 90% of cycling marketing is dedicated to bringing competition or pseudo-competition equipment to recreational riders.  if it has a performance image, then the enthusiasts will follow.

i’d race it in a time trial if it had close ratios. i have no need of fixed geared yet multi-speed commuter…i have regular multi-speed bikes that would do that better with 10 cogs on the back and 2 or 3 rings.

a wide-ratio hub is kinda like tempura chicken sushi… people who don’t like raw fish get it, but it would make more sense to just get chicken fingers.

Bikeradar [picked up the story](http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/three-speed-fixies-make-a-return-18328).

The original ASC hub fits the narrow spacing I’d find useful: 80”/72”/60” (on a 52 ring, 17 cog, 23mm tires, 170mm crank).  I think the British fixed gear club racers might have known what worked.  If it ain’t broke, why ‘fix’ the spacing?

‘andrew’, of course I can play with cogs and rings to get the middle gear to 74”, but if I do it with the wide ratio they are proposing, my higher gear is close to 100”! My lower at 55” would not be quite as useless…  The old ASC spacing is going to be the most useful to enthusiast cyclists 90% of the time.