Nope, but here's a useful advertorial review:
https://road.cc/...-kit-wheelset-296931
Once we see a range of branded wheels with the hub and the hub marketed alone more (£1200 at Reilly for upgrade) then a broader view will be possible. Looks like this is going to be a gravel push to start with, rather than TT/tri.
I suggest that they need to make sure by branding that Jimmy next door on the racking can SEE you're running 'Classified' and not just another 'one-by' tri-sheep.
"Classified has recently announced partnerships with a range of wheelset brands, including DT Swiss, Mavic, Fast Forward, Enve, Reynolds, Boyd Cycling, and Spinergy.
"That's a brilliant move on Classified's part, because it can go about focusing on making the integration with shifting systems better and dropping the weight of the hubs, while leaving the rim and wheel building stuff to the brands that already do a great job."

I'd be very interested, but for the fact I run a disc on race days.

To me it makes a lot of sense to get rid of the FD (Which a lot of AGers do, especially copying the pros!) but not give up any gear range. I tried 1x on my TT bike a few years ago but got fed up of grinding up steeper gradients at 35rpm. Not good for my aging knees I don't think.

But my understanding is that if you fit a Classified system to your bike, all your wheels need to be compatible and I can't see how I get a disc wheel with their hub. Unless there's an option I've missed?

Coming back to this - looks like we're going to get a look at how the system goes at WorldTour level this weekend:
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/victor-campenaerts-set-to-use-classified-hub-and-monster-chainring-at-opening-weekend/

It sounds like a cool product, but there is a discussion on the weight weenies forum that references a Tour magazine test that sheds doubt on their efficiency claims. The test found something like 6.5% losses in the easiest setting compared to a reference 2x Shimano setup.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

Interesting. Have you got a link? Tried a search on the WW forum but my god the functionality is an epic fail!

You can use Google to search, e.g. type

I did that, and I haven't seen anything on the Weightweenies site or in Google. Glancing at Tour Magazine's page through Google Translate, and I can't find the article.

In the English speaking world, I hope Ceramicspeed gets around to this.

That's my thinking as well. IF the efficiency when down-gearing (or whatever you call it) is at that 99.5% then the idea will succeed. But most internal geared hubs have way more loss than that. How they pulled it off without as much loss would be really cool to know... if it's true.

https://weightweenies.starbike.com/...6232cb3&start=90

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

Edit: Nevermind. I repeated a post above.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I found the mountain biking comment towards the end really interesting. All this talk about efficiency... mountain bikes aren't built to be efficient as much as they are built to be capable. Being able to drop into "granny gear" under heavy load would be a massive game changer in MTB. Mountain bikes' efficiency is created by their capability - Dropper posts, suspension, fatter tires, wide flat bars. Coming around a turn in the woods and BAM you've got a vertical climb up a wall you didn't see coming happens all the time.

Former WHR-holder and breakaway specialist Victor Campenaerts is, with a 63T up front.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/...-at-opening-weekend/

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

I've had a look through Tour's back catalogue & can't find anything regarding a test. The only ride review I could find from as far back as 2020 was in GranFondo magazine (link below) which seemed to suggest they were riding an early prototype or pre-production setup. Let's see if/when Classified come out with additional data around their "99%" claim.

https://granfondo-cycling.com/...red-hub-2020-test-2/

But mountain bikes are already exclusively 1x, what use is the classified hub there?
And in gravel we've been told that 1x is fine, you don't need a front derailleur... Is that being revealed as a lie all along?


Well most geared hubs have more than 2 gears. That plus stuff like a Sturmey Archer is ancient, some combination of materials.

Apart from simple weight & being sceptical of the efficiency, I'd say that being locked into cassettes from one small company is a significant concern too;
- Which rear derailleurs are they spaced for? They have 11 and 12 speed, claim compatibility with SRAM, shimano & Campy; but they all use different spacing for 12 speed...
- How is the RD shifting vs Shimano, whose cassettes have exclusive proprietary ramps that make the shifts smoother than any alternative.

The cassettes certainly cost approx. 20% more than a DuraAce cassette at present, and weigh in a bit lighter, dwarfed by the hub weight obviously though.

I fear that *if* this product has value, it's being totally mis-marketed at the high performance market where it is obviously not a winner.

I think they missed the mark on two (maybe 3) factors:
The maybe is efficiency, which sounds like no one knows about for sure. If the loss is large, then no one interested in performance is likely to adopt. It might still be useful for people who very rarely use the small ring, but want the gearing to be there in an emergency.
Proprietary cassettes are worrying. This is a wear part, so you have less choice, higher cost, and the risk they go out of business and you can’t get replacements. This will affect adoption.
My other complaint is that they copied typical front ratios. I think part of why 1x is popular is that you don’t lose that many gears. I tossed both Shimano and SRAM typical setups into a gear calculator. Once you account for the overlap, you really only have 16 different gears on a 2x12. So you’re not losing that much.
The difference between front rings is dictated by the derailleur’s ability to shift. I assume this isn’t as much an issue for a rear hub. Since they need a proprietary cassette, why not use something like a .5 reduction, then run like a 60 front? You’d now have a 60/30 equivalent, and you could run some combination of 14-30 in the back. This would give you a low gear at 1:1, and a top gear similar to either 11x52 or 10x50, and very little overlap? Am I missing something here? I guess I’m making an assumption that modern electronics could shift the cassette from largest to smallest while simultaneously shifting the hub.

They put the frictional loss for the .7 low gear ratio at roughly equivalent to the frictional loss associated with using a smaller chain ring. So that is wash. The aero gains could be pretty large. I seem to remember Cervelo testing the P3 with and with out a front hanger. I don't remember the exact numbers but they weren't trivial (maybe 1.5 watts) and this was way before the giant the Di2 front derailleur. Add in the straigter chain line, instantaneous shifting, no dropped and jammed chains, etc and I think there are some decent advantages of close to 5 watts. Now the real problem will be getting a flat. Neutral service isn't going to have wheel and Victor isn't getting up any of those hard climbs in a 62.

The new DD/Ult level Di2 FD is quite small. The AXS on the other hand is like 4x bigger.

I have to nitpick a bit here...chains still drop and jam on 1x. My experience is that it happens about as often as with 2x. I agree with your other point though!

Looks pretty sick. Wish that HED was a partner. Gonna keep an eye once they publish the list of compatible wheelsets.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

stay tuned.

---

Andy Tetmeyer (I work at HED)

It's not uncommon to drop down a steep descent, then suddenly hit a 25% wall you didn't know about. In such situations you're in a bit of a panic dumping cassette and hoping you don't stall out before you get a manageable gear. And fearing the comments of people behind you if force them to stack up behind you as you put a foot down. Electronic is quicker than mechanical, but it still takes several complete rotations of the crank to get the chain moved, and that's the real holdup. If you could get a huge change in ratio instantly and while under load, that's a pretty big thing.

Same with gravel and cyclocross. Being able to shift instantly and under full load in cyclocross would be an unambiguous benefit.

In short, getting a shift without the need to turn the crank to get the chain wrap completed is a real, measurable benefit. That's the big weakness of the FD and RD. We have shifting that moves the derailleur in milliseconds, but are limited by low torque, slow (relative to the derailleur movement speed) turns of the crank to get the chain actually moved.

The reason you can get away with a 1x in MTB and gravel is speed and grade. At low speeds and going uphill, torque is readily available to get the job done because there is so much resistance for your legs to work against. At high speeds, the momentum of the wheel is already "running away" from you so much, it's more about keeping an ideal cadence for human legs than torque. To do so, you need a bunch of gears up top with very fine jumps in teeth. Notice the jumps in teeth for your lowest gears on MTB are huge compared to a road bike.

Proof in point, notice that as gravel gets way faster as people truly start to race it, elites are opting for double chainrings. A lot of us are riding gravel at 14 mph on a good day, but pros are racing at 20+ easy.

Higher speeds require finer teeth spacing and bigger front chainring, but that's incompatible with also the times when it gets steep and gnarly, so we revert back to what we know works - a double instead of a single. Also think of the distance covered per pedal stroke at high speeds are way bigger than at low, so just a few teeth increase at low speed is fine, but too massive to overcome at high speed.

So the physics has worked out to - low speed is great with big teeth jumps. High speed needs tiny tooth jumps. And that's why a single chainring is a problem if you're using a bike for both.

As I've gotten better (faster) at gravel, I'm starting to see where I could benefit with a double front or a Classified hub. My current gravel bike is very optimized from 1 to 17 mph, but the higher I go than that, the cadences get wonky to keep up the pedal pressure at ideal cadences I'm used to from my road/tri bike. I ride about 50/50 gravel/road, so there's plenty of times where I'm coasting on pavement or at a weird cadence that is definitely sub-optimal.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

makes sense
you might be interested in what roell, the classified inventor has to say https://www.classified-cycling.cc/...mp;mc_eid=c2d2f8af57 about efficiency, why bigger single chainrings are better and why campenearts is now using their system for the classics: https://www.cyclingnews.com/...-at-opening-weekend/

Here's Hambini's analysis:

Lists upsides and key downsides he suggests are 1) bespoke cassette and 2) inefficiency in the 0.7 ratio losing over 10w at 251w.

Based on 1) zero test data, 2) never having ridden the system, 3) never having even seen (!) the system in person

Surely someone can get this setup onto a roller with a couple of power meters attached and confirm one way or the other. Either Classified are outright lying about their efficiency or so-called experts like Hambini are just sh!t stirring...