MTB Hubs

[TheLegend]

 

 

Actually, we haven't been through

this before, so no Legend, I'm not teasing Johan or trying to get a reaction out of him.

 

My argument, in my opinion at least, has basis. That should prove that I'm not trolling.

 

[/quote']

I didn't mean to imply that you are trolling. When I wrote that it doesn't matter how often you come up with something I should have included "(if)" there because I centainly don't keep track.

just to clarify.

 

[GoLefty!!]

GoLefty' date=' for 'YOUR' riding it might be fine, for others, it might NOT be fine.

So you're saying don't buy an Aston Martin cos a CitiGolf is sufficient. Does the same job surely? What a waste of money, except when you drive one.

MintSauce, you are a legend. +1000 At least I'll know where NOT to go to have my wheels built.

"We don't continue to erode dongas by attempting to ride them and we don't ratchet our way through rides. We pedal in full circles."

WOW! arrogant eh.

Anyways, I'm off to go and 'erode a donga'
[/quote']

 

my lord you are worse than a girl. You twist and twirl more than a twist and twirly thing.

 

Aston martin (CK) and Citi Golf (old steel hub with steel axle and poor bearings) are simple not comparable.

Sure they both get you from a to be but you buy them for different reasons.

 

If you said you wanted to change from a Honda NSX to an Aston MArtin I would understand. YOu simply want to belong to a different club. Going from Aston to Citi means you were just kuck at your job.

 

the gist of the discussion is that XT compares favourably with CK except n the minds of a few people who buy into the colour, smell and price of the CK hubs. Usually the people who repsond to this type of marketing are women but hey, nothing wrong with being in touch with the lady inside dude.

 

Different strokes you know..

[MintSauce]

 

 

Actually, we haven't been through

this before, so no Legend, I'm not teasing Johan or trying to get a reaction out of him.

 

My argument, in my opinion at least, has basis. That should prove that I'm not trolling.

 

[/quote']

I didn't mean to imply that you are trolling. When I wrote that it doesn't matter how often you come up with something I should have included "(if)" there because I centainly don't keep track.

just to clarify.

 

 

Understood....thanks

 

 

[bustthesickness]

 

GoLefty' date=' for 'YOUR' riding it might be fine, for others, it might NOT be fine.

 

So you're saying don't buy an Aston Martin cos a CitiGolf is sufficient. Does the same job surely? What a waste of money, except when you drive one.

 

MintSauce, you are a legend. +1000 At least I'll know where NOT to go to have my wheels built.

 

"We don't continue to erode dongas by attempting to ride them and we don't ratchet our way through rides. We pedal in full circles."

 

WOW! arrogant eh.

 

Anyways, I'm off to go and 'erode a donga'

[/quote']

 

my lord you are worse than a girl. You twist and twirl more than a twist and twirly thing.

 

Aston martin (CK) and Citi Golf (old steel hub with steel axle and poor bearings) are simple not comparable.

Sure they both get you from a to be but you buy them for different reasons.

 

If you said you wanted to change from a Honda NSX to an Aston MArtin I would understand. YOu simply want to belong to a different club. Going from Aston to Citi means you were just kuck at your job.

 

the gist of the discussion is that XT compares favourably with CK except n the minds of a few people who buy into the colour, smell and price of the CK hubs. Usually the people who repsond to this type of marketing are women but hey, nothing wrong with being in touch with the lady inside dude.

 

Different strokes you know..

yes

 

[GoLefty!!]

but please do not feed the drivel that CK is better becauseit is more expensive.

[bustthesickness]

yes

[bustthesickness]

no, never

[Johan Bornman]

The last time we discussed ratcheting mechanisms you seemed to fail to understand that the Chris King mechanism does not use a pawl system. I posted a photograph of the internals of a Chris King hub and you kept going on about "one pawl engages at a time". I then posted the above diagram in order to indicate to you the differences between a pawl system and King's ringdrive. The differences are VAST!

 

You however, never responded to that posting. Would you like me to go find that thread for you?

 

 

[/quote']

 

I know you're just dying to dig up the old post again, so why don't you? Yes, I called the ring drive's splines (for want of the proper word for that type of ridge) a pawl. I meant the engagement mechanism. It didn't detract from the meaning though. Ring Drive is a proprietary term of CK's and I just don't know what they call their helical engagement splines.

 

Please get over that.

 

 

 

 So how is it that I "don't seem to grasp the concept" when you didn't answer my last question in this regard?

[/quote']

 

I'll try one final time. In a pawl mechanism where the torque is supplied by a shaft (perfect scenario), you'll find that one single pawl transmits most of the torque. Like I said, it is because of engineering differences. No matter how good your tolerances, one pawl (a different one in different positions possibly) carries the can. Because it is elastic, it compresses and the others also start to make contact. But one carries the burden. It is a fact of engineering that your denial won't alter.

 

Further, when that torque is supplied by a chain, you can envisage that the hub flexes from the chain's pull. The hub is unsupported over most of its 135mm width and chain tension is massive. The axle flexes and because the force is not delivered in a nice and round form like with a shaft, the housing also flexes and deforms.

 

This worsens any engineering aberations and disengages pawls in front of the hub. As the hub rotates, those again engages and another one disengages.

 

Now CK hubs are subject to the same reality. I don't want to pretend it is a problem, it is not, it is just a phenomena. The fact that it has a ring drive does not alter what happens from chain tension or machining.

 

Remember, even ball bearings with aberations as small as 20 microns have the same issue. The balls with the biggest aberations carry most of the load, albeit that the bearings are at least preloaded and therefore already squashed to full contact.

 

Thefore, you have one pawl/tooth/spline/ring thing engaging first and as pressure is applied, others may or may not make contact.

 

In systems like these the pawls/teeth/splines/ring things are always designed to take the entire load one at a time.

 

A typical CNC machining centre can manufacture components to within 100th of a millimeter. Think about that for a second. Do the math if you have to. On the component in question such a tolerance is close enough for the teeth to mesh accurately. Besides, if there was an inaccuracy I would venture to guess that you would have a system engaging on 70 or 71 out of 72 teeth in stead of having it engage on just 1.

[/quote']

 

CNC machines that work to tolerances of 100th of a mm? Not in hubs. That's finer than the bearing's tolerance. It is like displaying a 5 meg photo on a VGA screen. There is no need for such tolerances on the CNC parts.

 

What amuses me is that, for someone to whom scientific proof is so imperative, you seem quite comfortable to discount the Ringdrive without even knowing how it works or having seen one in real life (I assume this because if you had I wouldn't have to post pictures to explain it to you)

[/quote']

 

I have never dissed the ringdrive or CK hubs. Lets get this straight. I'm just not in awe of everything that comes with an aura and a price tag. I dont get emotional about inanimate objects and put them all under the same magnifying glass. Every new gadget presented to me gets the same question: "What problem does that solve?"

 

CK is beautiful, well-made, durable and sounds wonderful. But it still conforms to physics. I am also of the opinion that the quick engage is moot. Lets differ on that, who cares?

 

I also know CKs well, having had exposure to a few since the 6-speed days. Wanna see pictures of CK wheels I've built?

 

Yes....they do {break}. The new XT wheelset is just one example. I have been in and out of bikeshops ever since the day I started riding. No....since before I started riding when I was hanging out at the LBS drooling over bikes. I have seen more failures as a result of pawls breaking than just seizing up.

 

[/quote']
I believe there is a manufacturing fault or perhaps a design fault there. It is not the norm for pawls and pawls shouldn't be written off because of one bum design.

 

Obviously the ratches chip and pawls break, but the norm is for them to just stop engaging and offer permanent freewheel.

 

 

Finally, you're missing my point. I know you claim to do all your rides in very eroded singletrack where you cranks cannot make full revolutions due to the pedals hitting the embankments on both sides and therefore need a 360/72 degree ratcheting functionality. However, most of us don't do that. We don't continue to erode dongas by attempting to ride them and we don't ratchet our way through rides. We pedal in full circles. Therefore, a pedalling engagement of 360/16 times per revolution is good enough for us. On a 175mm crank, that is a few millimeters of travel. Therefore anything more is a waste.

[/quote']

 

Would you please be so kind as to point me to the thread where I made such claims? All I ever said was that in technical situations I like the fact that King hubs engage quicker.

 [/quote']

 

Exaggerated metaphor. I don't know if you said that or sketched some other scenario where you had to ratchet your way out of an obstacle. The "you" was a spray all retort at the argument. I usually encounter that type of answer from the ratchet clan. They always want to ratchet out of some technical situation that I seldom seem to encounter. Perhaps I just don't ride enough gnarly stuff. If you want quicker engagement, it's fine by me too. I just don't see it being an issue with 99% of riders.

 

 

 

[Tumbleweed]

er' date=' you don't think the "email hope" thing was a little tongue-in-cheek?[/quote']

 

?

 

?

 

Errr..no. I read the entire comment and interpreted it as: "do you really think you can tell real engineers from credible companies what's what?"

 

?

 

?

 

 

 

couldn't you have just read it for what it is? as it was? interpretation, like the proverbial "a little knowledge", is a dangerous thing.

[Johan Bornman]

er' date=' you don't think the "email hope" thing was a little tongue-in-cheek?[/quote']

 

 

Errr..no. I read the entire comment and interpreted it as: "do you really think you can tell real engineers from credible companies what's what?"

 

 

couldn't you have just read it for what it is? as it was? interpretation, like the proverbial "a little knowledge", is a dangerous thing.

 

No I can't and I won't. This South African inferiority complex is pathetic and the comment in question is a manifestation thereof. It is always presented as "who are you/we, mere South Africans, to criticise a huge big international company. What do you (the local) know about design they don't know in New York/London/Paris/Tokyo."

 

As soon as it is revealed that the local understands his topic, then he is fingered as arrogant or worse, opinionated. If he doesn't work for a big company or presents his credentials, he is also not allowed to criticise. I wonder how many people ask Barry Ronge if he's ever made a film?

 

Therefore, when I present a concept and someone who cannot understand what I'm saying because he's not prepared to think or ask, disses the concept with a "who are you to dare criticise a big corporation who can afford lots of clever people", then I get hostile.  

 

It doesn't make me popular at dinner parties, but then again, dinner parties suck.

 

I sat down with one of the guys on The Hub one afternoon and discovered that he is a world authority on weapon sighting systems. He told me how an American engineer dissmissed his views on one or other design. Although he didn't express it as such because the conversation demanded otherwise, it was one of those clear cases of the little guy cannot possibly come up with anything intelligent.

 

Go send the dammned e-mail, lets have an intelligent discussion around O-rings as seals on moving parts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tumbleweed]

er' date=' you don't think the "email hope" thing was a little tongue-in-cheek?[/quote']

 

?

 

?

 

Errr..no. I read the entire comment and interpreted it as: "do you really think you can tell real engineers from credible companies what's what?"

 

?

 

?

couldn't you have just read it for what it is? as it was? interpretation, like the proverbial "a little knowledge", is a dangerous thing.

 

?

 

No I can't and I won't. This South African inferiority complex is pathetic and the comment in question is a manifestation thereof. It is always presented as "who are you/we, mere South Africans, to criticise a huge big international company. What do you (the local) know about design they don't know in New York/London/Paris/Tokyo."

 

?

 

As soon as it is revealed that the local understands his topic, then he is fingered as arrogant or worse, opinionated. If he doesn't work for a big company or presents his credentials, he is also not allowed to criticise. I wonder how many people ask Barry Ronge if he's ever made a film?

 

?

 

Therefore, when I present a concept and someone who cannot understand what I'm saying because he's not prepared to think or ask, disses the concept with a "who are?you to dare criticise a big corporation who can afford lots of clever people", then?I get hostile. ?

 

?

 

It doesn't make me popular at dinner parties, but then again, dinner parties suck.

 

?

 

I sat down with one of the guys on The Hub one afternoon and discovered that he is a world authority on weapon sighting systems. He told me how an American engineer dissmissed his views on one or other design. Although he didn't express it as such because the conversation demanded otherwise, it was one of those clear cases of the little guy cannot possibly come up with anything intelligent.

 

?

 

Go send the dammned e-mail, lets have an intelligent discussion around O-rings as seals on moving parts.

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

then why doesn't the little guy buy himself a cnc machine and build something better than the big guy's?

 

 

 

i, too, don't buy industry bumpf - partly because i'm add and don't have the concentration span to read it, and, secondly, because i know what feels good when i ride it. but i don't understand why you get out of joint when someone throws industry players into the fray. surely you can't dismiss everything they say because the little man may know better. there is a phrase to describe that mentality.

 

 

 

i agree: it's good to question things, johan, but there is a difference between curiousity and scepticism. there is also a big difference between critique and criticism.

[Johan Bornman]

then why doesn't the little guy buy himself a cnc machine and build something better than the big guy's?

 

Maybe because he is not in the hub business or he doesn't know how to operate a CNC machine or because he doesn't want to be in manufacturing or because ....

 

This is exactly what epitomises the silly approach to criticism. "If you are such a great critic' date=' then why don't you do that yourself."

 

That's such a lame reply.

 

i, too, don't buy industry bumpf - partly because i'm add and don't have the concentration span to read it, and, secondly, because i know what feels good when i ride it. but i don't understand why you get out of joint when someone throws industry players into the fray. surely you can't dismiss everything they say because the little man may know better. there is a phrase to describe that mentality.

 

Are we even on the same page? I explained why O-ring seals are not a good idea on moving parts and you are talking about industry players in the fray. Huh?

 

 

i agree: it's good to question things' date=' johan, but there is a difference between curiousity and scepticism. there is also a big difference between critique and criticism. [/quote']

 

I take it you see curiosity as positive and scepticism as negative. Go over to the AWOL wheel thread and see just how healthy scepticism is. Peer review is a tough, tough environment.

 

I'm curious to see how you interpret my comments on O-rings as seals on moving parts. Critique or criticism?

 

 

 

[Johan Bornman]

Just as a matter of interest' date=' all components on the CK hubs are replacable, including the driveshell and all internal hub parts such as the drive rings, all parts sold individually and not as a unit.


[/quote']

 

That's the sign of a company I want to  buy from. CK is pretty lonely in that regard. Campag, Shimano, Bontrager and a host of others force you to discard big ticket items just because a wear part wore out.

 

I'm just about to throw out a Campag Record headset because the races are worn. They're easy to knock out and press in but not available as separte parts.

 

 

[GoLefty!!]

that is a fantastic feature of CK hubs but lets look at the cost of those parts please.... ya maybe not so great afterall...

 

O-ring seals on moving parts as a bit crap and a cheap way to solve a problem. They work wonders on static parts like in the joining flange of two sectionsof Torpedo hull But not where parts move.

This is where Hope hubs are por in design. they claim sealed bearings because of an O-ring and an oil seal. Neitehr are designed to keep dirt out.

Shimano hubs have the best seals in the business, the XT and XTR particularly.

CK hubs also have excellent seals but propreitry bearings which they make themselves. More porn star stuff but at a cost.

 

Their Ring drive clutch, which is what it is in fact, is an ingenious piece of engineering but does it do the job better than a XTR 3 pawl system?

 

Maybe over time But if one XTR hiub lasts me 5yrs  and I can buy 3 XTR hubs for the price of one CK then I think its obvious where the sensible money will be spent..

[Tumbleweed]

then why doesn't the little guy buy himself a cnc machine and build something better than the big guy's?

 

Maybe because he is not in the hub business or he doesn't know how to operate a CNC machine or because he doesn't want to be in manufacturing or because ....

 

This is exactly what epitomises the silly approach to criticism. "If you are such a great critic' date=' then why don't you do that yourself."

 

That's such a lame reply.

[/quote']

thanks. worked hard at it. maybe this is just as lame: those who can do, those you can't teach?

i' date=' too, don't buy industry bumpf - partly because i'm add and don't have the concentration span to read it, and, secondly, because i know what feels good when i ride it. but i don't understand why you get out of joint when someone throws industry players into the fray. surely you can't dismiss everything they say because the little man may know better. there is a phrase to describe that mentality.
[/quote']

 

Are we even on the same page? I explained why O-ring seals are not a good idea on moving parts and you are talking about industry players in the fray. Huh?

 

clearly not. i am referring to the chagrin you take when someone dares challenge your experience against that of a "a big corporation"' date=' eg, your incorrect interpretation of the rather straightforward, tongue-in-cheek "email" post.

 

i agree: it's good to question things, johan, but there is a difference between curiousity and scepticism. there is also a big difference between critique and criticism.

 

 I take it you see curiosity as positive and scepticism as negative. Go over to the AWOL wheel thread and see just how healthy scepticism is. Peer review is a tough' date=' tough environment.

 

I'm curious to see how you interpret my comments on O-rings as seals on moving parts. Critique or criticism?

  

[/quote']

indeed i do see scepticism as negative. i prefer the gentler approach of socrates - it is best, i believe, to eke out the inconsistencies in someone's argument by interrogation. even hegel himself balked at the dialectic named for him, believing it was heavy-handed to assume there was necessarily an antithesis to every thesis.

 

you admit to being "hostile" in an earlier post. generally i try steer clear of the advice of an emotional man. i believe emotion is detrimental to judgement, and thus would lead to criticism rather than critique more often than not.

 

so, call me naive, but i would prefer to go through life with a wide-eyed innocence and curiosity, rather than the polarised view of someone constantly saying "been there, done that".

 

ps, i am a hoot at dinner parties.

holy roller2008-11-17 22:46:07

[Xenomorph]

 

 

Maybe over time But if one XTR hiub lasts me 5yrs  and I can buy 3 XTR hubs for the price of one CK then I think its obvious where the sensible money will be spent..

 

This is what worries me about bicycle culture, riders are becoming so obessesed with weight that they just by the next lightest part that is released, By a good product once, its much better for the environment