Truvativ HammerSchmidt Pro Review

Pro Reviews

Additional insight

  • While I can’t speak on behalf of maintenance, the system itself is one that doesn’t need much according to Truvativ. Essentially it will be a lube your chain and you’re ready to go with some routine maintenance to make sure the HammerSchmidt continues to flourish.
  • To shift into an easier gear, you need to pull cable (push the big thumb lever). This is the reverse of what is normally done but it is less of an issue as there is only two ways to shift, and if you do make a mistake it is a quick shift to recover since HammerSchmidt shifts so quickly and requires no pedaling.
  • I would’ve personally liked to see a two piece style crankset and external bottom bracket setup personally but the test setup proved to be issue free.
  • There is currently only one mounting setup to install the HammerSchmidt shift cable. Top pull derailleur frames and even some bottom pull frames will have to rework how to get the shift cable to the HammerSchmidt. In addition, the position of the HammerSchmidt cable entry while I didn’t experience any problems with could potentially be less than ideal in the event of an ill placed obstacle.
  • While in the lower gear (22t/24t) the bike pedals like a normal crankset without any feel of drag. Once the shifter is pressed and overdrive is engaged I did feel some drag in the system that didn’t feel quite as effortless as a non HammerSchmidt setup. The system we rode was a pre-production version and brand new so some of this smoothness could be alleviated once the system breaks in.
  • The overall system weight of the HammerSchmidt will come down over time but currently it is a bit portly when compared to lighter setups.
  • The HammerSchmidt is built around 22t/24t setup and as such means that your suspension will react similarly to riding in the granny ring. If more bikes are designed around the granny ring this will be a mute point but currently there are some designs out there that don’t pedal ideally in the granny ring and the HammerSchmidt will suffer in those designs.


*All weights provided by SRAM

Part Year Claimed(g)
2009 HammerSchmidt AM 175mm
Collar Plate 2009 217
Mechanism 2009 866
Non-Drive Arm 2009 246
73mm HammerSchmidt AM BB 2009 295
Total 1623
Part Year Claimed(g)
2009 HammerSchmidt FR 175mm
Collar Plate 2009 217
Mechanism 2009 922
Non-Drive Arm 2009 287
73mm HammerSchmidt FR BB 2009 360
Total 1785
Savings Year Claimed(g)
Additional Weight Savings
7 less chain links -36g
Mid-cage to Short Cage Derailleur -5g
Total -41
  • Compared to a Truvativ’s Stylo two ring setup with XR Guide the HammerSchmidt AM weighs 172g more.
  • Compared to a Truvativ Holtzfeller 2.2 two ring setup with XR Guide the HammerSchmidt FR weights 11g more.


  • HammerSchmidt X.0 2-speed shifter $114
  • HammerSchmidt X.9 2-speed shifter $57
  • HammerSchmidt All Mountain (170 / 175) 24T ISCG 05 (22T & ISCG 03 included) $595
  • HammerSchmidt Freeride (165 / 170 / 175) 24T ISCG 05 (22T & ISCG 03 included) $650
  • HammerSchmidt All Mountain or Freeride Bottom Bracket (available in 68/73, or 83) $55

Related Articles


  • Anonymous says:

    The concept might allow for what would be normally be a large front sprocket (without the size). A future combo that might be nice to see would be a new set of gear ratios to go with the Hammerschmidt. What if the Hammerschmidt did a 2.4x overdrive and went with a rear sprocket that had the following teeth – 15,16,18,20,22,24,26,30,34 ? It should allow you to shift up through all the gears on the rear sprocket and then switch to overdrive and shift up through the gears again providing continuous change of ratio.

  • Anonymous says:

    “The overall system weight of the HammerSchmidt will come down over time but currently it is a bit portly when compared to lighter setups.”

    So you’re saying the HammerSchmidt is heavier than a lighter setup?

  • Anonymous says:

    Yea, the HammerSchmidt is clearly not the lightest setup out there. Look at the numbers and compare them to other setups and you can see. Consumers have to think about the benefits and drawbacks to the HammerSchmidt system as a whole to determine if its right for them.

  • Anonymous says:

    how much is it in money

  • Anonymous says:

    Definitely not the type of crankset I want. Between Truvativ’s outstanding… err… alright… crappy bottom brackets to their crappy reliability with their crank sets, the company hasn’t given me any reason to spend 2x on a crankset compared to an opposing Shimano or even the B-Boxx by Bionicon/Nicolai.

  • Anonymous says:

    well, i heard that truvativs had a habit of dropping off but have been pleasently surprised; my stylos havetn fallen off yet in over a year of abuse.

  • Anonymous says:

    i wonder how it will work with a rohloff hub? (too bad the hammer doesn’t have twist shifting so the shifters match)

  • Anonymous says:

    The Hammerschmidt + Rohloff idea sounds good but it wouldn’t work as well as you think. The Rohloff needs a bigger (~32t) front chainring to give the correct gearing.

  • Anonymous says:

    The Rohloff already gives the same gearing range as a typical 3×9 setup, so the question is what would you do with the extra gearing range of the Hammerschmidt? If you plan to use it to set a speed record, then you only need the upper gears anyway. Just go with a huge chainring on a cpnventional 3×9 setup, or run a Rohloff with a huge chainring.

    If you go with a normally sized cog in the rear, as I do with mine, (a 16-tooth, I think), then running a 32-tooth chainring on the front with the Hammerschmidt would not only give a ridiculously, and unusably low ratio with the Hammerschmidt in low range, but would certainly over-torque the Rohloff beyond its design limits. Rohloff states that to avoid overloading the Speedhub the gearing ratio between chainring and the cog on the hub must be at least 2.35 to 1. If you are running a 16-tooth cog on the rear, for example, you would have to run at least a 38-tooth ring on the front, or the torque could damage the hub. So, with either the 22 or 24 tooth rings available for the Hammerschmidt, You would overlaod the Rohloff Speedhub, even with the largest available cog, (17 teeth). So, I can’treally see any good reason to couple a Speedhub with a Hammerschmidt.

    Incidentally, I’ve been running my Speedhub on my Santa Cruz Bullit on downhill and urban assault since 2001, with no problems. I’m on my third fork, second shock, and third rear rim, but the Rohloff has taken lots of abuse with no signs of wear. The only complaints I have are that it is heavy, and in certain gears, where you drive through all three planetary gearsets, the friction is noticeable.

    I imagine there will almost certainly be a bit of added friction in the Hammerschmidt, as well, although probably not very noticeable.

  • Anonymous says:

    Looks like a great front-end solution. Rear shifting is where it’s at, so when they introduce an alternative to the Rohloff hub, things will really get interesting.

  • Anonymous says:

    Nice article, but didn’t you forget to subtract the weight of the front derailleur. This would mean around 160g less than quoted and make it pretty much a wash with the two-ring stylo.

  • Anonymous says:

    All those weight numbers are provided by Sram and looks to be included in the weight comparison part but not the savings table. So no it isn’t a wash.

  • Anonymous says:

    Also they include that Truvativ XR which is a tank (Stinger for example is a light/good two ring guide). Compare the numbers to a Shimano XT setup w/stinger and you’ll see that difference is quite a bit more. Hammerschmidt looks to offer some really nice benefits though as well that you have to take into consideration

  • Anonymous says:

    Does anyone have any real world riding experience, instead of straight speculation?

  • Anonymous says:

    Good idea but poor execution. SInce rear cassettes already offer 1:3 ratio with 11:34 teeth on cogs the planetary front system should offer at least a 1:2 or ideally a 1:3 ratio. As is it there is the same wasteful overlap of ratios as found in classic derailleur based systems.

  • Anonymous says:

    nice …Others may have other opinions but a light, capable “rear” geared hub would be more beneficial to me. Still, its great to see innovation and new products. I run a 2×9 now and would certainly consider this if not for the price, and the loss in efficiency

  • Anonymous says:

    The Rohloff doesn’t need a Hammerschmidt, it covers all the gears you need already. The Hammerschmidt is just a nicely packaged Schlumpf Crankset and the math has already been done to get a good gearing range with the Shimano Alfine 8sp internal hub. Check out Sheldon Brown’s gear calculator to work out your ratios. Nice job SRAM except for the obscure mounting requirements.

  • Pingback: Hammerschmidt « The Lazy Randonneur

  • TheRanch says:

    Most comments have missed one important point about this crank is and I quote here… “The Truvativ HammerSchmidt AM crankset could very well revolutionize bicycle drivetrains from this point forward by eliminating that last bastion of low-tech: the front derailleur. Gone are the days of jammed or dropped chains, missed shifts and bent cages in favor of a seamless and bulletproof system that magically ekes two gears out of a single chainring in any condition, under any load (or even no load), any time you wish.”

    I’m looking for a system that uses this crank OR I go with a chain guide & a 10spd cassette, 32t front ring, 10spd shifter, 10spd rear derailleur and 10spd width chain.

  • Joey says:

    Will the Hammerschmidt fit a Santa Cruz Butcher without any frame modification?

  • GZ says:

    Intense Tracer….been riding THSchmidt for over two years..never go back
    Still using the same chain…ground clearance..Zero maintenance..Bullet proof.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.