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

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

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

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

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

Hardly new,

It's new for mountain bikes.

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

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

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

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

Sturmey Archer CS-RK3 3Spd F30 Cassette Hub

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

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

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

@kuco

He looks absolutely delighted with it 🤣

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But all the cool kids said 1x was better?

Does anyone really need close ratios on their MTB?

Downhill riders...

...yeah, exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But use a planetary gear system.

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

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

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

Not an issue on road/gravel.

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

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

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

Some frames won’t accept a front mech nowadays.

sillyoldman
Full Member

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not sure that it is planetary.

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

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

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

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

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

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

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

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

I forced myself to sit through that one

Not all heroes wear capes.

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

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

Hambini had a look at this a few weeks back

and?

And it's a planetary gear hub.

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

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

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

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

Charming.

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

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

Whut? Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

always the Schlumpf Drive:

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

various versions for different applications.

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

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

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

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

I know exactly what cross chaining is thanks.

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

 

Or indeed how it compares to a Hammerschmidt (or perhaps needing a new version of). As I understood a Hammerschmidt was planetary gears and was generally not liked…I only rode a hundred metres on one thoug

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

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

Cool tech but ultimately pretty pointless

On an mtb a 1x system works perfectly well

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

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

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

Also…it’s 2.5k😂😂

Also…it’s 2.5k😂😂

Only if you want a battery and Shifter...

Also…it’s 2.5k😂😂

Only if you want a battery and Shifter…

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

@mert, you can, but it’s not ideal
https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/workshop/cross-chaining/I know exactly what cross chaining is thanks.

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

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

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

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

Oh look, SRAM Dual Drive!

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

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

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

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

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

@chipps

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

Cheers

Sanny

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

sillyoldman
Full Member

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

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

thols2
Full Member

The middle ring on a triple ring setup is normally aligned with the center of the cassette. You can use the full range of the cassette using the middle ring. The small ring was intended only to be used with the inner few sprockets on the cassette, otherwise you have a terrible chainline.

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

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

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

No it wasn't. And no you don't.

Even on 3x6 it was perfectly possible and practical to use 4 or 5 of the 6 sprockets from the small ring.

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

No it wasn’t. And no you don’t.

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

This ^^

The main issue with cross chaining was little to do with chainline itself and more to do with catching the outer plates of the chain against the inner teeth of the big ring when attempting to use small-small and the potential for ripping the mech off when using big-big because in the days of 3x7, 3x8 etc, rear mechs had far lower capacity than modern mechs.
Also modern 11/12sp chains are far thinner and so far more flexible than the old 7/8sp chains which were much thicker and much less tolerant of being flexed sideways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

No it wasn’t. And no you don’t.

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

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

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

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

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

Much heavier and ties you into one frame.

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

Better solution surely?

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

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

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

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

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

I was doing the odd prem and a bit of elite racing on the continent on 53x12 or 13.
Not these days though, i'm 50% heavier and only got 2/3rds of the FTP...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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