Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Really I am that slow
    Reputation: SlowerThenSnot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,739

    This makes tons of sense to me

    I really do hope this starts to catch on!

    http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/07/11/...moves-forward/
    Read my BLOG!

    Nipple twister and bike builder at Borealis

    http://www.borealisbikes.com/

  2. #2
    meatier showers
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    7,330
    Quote Originally Posted by SlowerThenSnot View Post
    I really do hope this starts to catch on!

    http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/07/11/...moves-forward/
    Yeah that's a good idea right there.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org
    Remember who
    you wanted to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by riverrat
    Jaybo... quit *****ing and move to Texas

  3. #3
    Former Bike Wrench
    Reputation: mtnbiker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,985
    I guess we'll see...I think the BB30 standard is great, eliminates all the shortcomings of external bearing cups (exposure to elements, wide q-factor, bad chainline) and while it has gotten some increased use it is still not widely used. Unless you can get SRAM (more likely) or Shimano (when hell freezes over) to make cassettes for the design it will likely remain a novelty at best.

  4. #4
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker72 View Post
    I guess we'll see...I think the BB30 standard is great, eliminates all the shortcomings of external bearing cups (exposure to elements, wide q-factor, bad chainline) and while it has gotten some increased use it is still not widely used. Unless you can get SRAM (more likely) or Shimano (when hell freezes over) to make cassettes for the design it will likely remain a novelty at best.
    Huge and I mean huge difference between the cassette hub design and BB30. BB30 means a whole new frame. The cassette hub body is designed specifically to be a retro fit of existing cassette hub bodies.

    I fully expect Campagnolo and Shimano to embrace the concept.
    1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992 Stumpjumpers. 1995 Waterford 1200, 1999 Waterford RSE, plus a garage full of steel frames.

  5. #5
    Made in Canada
    Reputation: tpm7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    415
    That's a great idea, and open source to boot. It's great to see developments and ideas made not for personal gains but only to advance the sport.
    STOLEN: '07 Banshee Viento - See Eastern Canada Forum for Pictures. If anyone sees it contact me ASAP!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,661
    A very interesting concept. I've worked in the automotive industry and can attest to the strength and torque handling capabilities of a polygon type interface. But I'm with mtnbiker72, we'll have to wait and see. Getting the industry to climb on board is the biggest hurdle. If a hub manufacturer and a cassette biggie hook up with it, then we might see something. Development, testing, marketing, the risk is huge. It'd take some one like SRAM and Hope or Chris King to partner up. I'd certainly love to see the results. But for now, we can only wait and see.

    Good Dirt
    "I do whatever my Rice Cripsies tell me to!"

  7. #7
    Tool
    Reputation: Pedalphile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,977
    It will be an uphill battle to get the big players to adopt this. Looking from a high level, we're hoping that they'll invest money to allow their customers to replace parts less often...not a good value proposition on the surface.

    Having struggled to remove a cassette that had dug its way well into an alloy hub, I would love to see this innovation take hold, though.
    I can barely get my mouth around it.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,971
    It is true that that type of joint is common in industry....

    However in very clean services only...

    The design is very prone to two pieces galling together....I've had that happen with the standard design...this will be much worse for that aspect.

  9. #9
    Former Bike Wrench
    Reputation: mtnbiker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,985
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    Huge and I mean huge difference between the cassette hub design and BB30. BB30 means a whole new frame. The cassette hub body is designed specifically to be a retro fit of existing cassette hub bodies.

    I fully expect Campagnolo and Shimano to embrace the concept.
    Well new frames are made everyday...and there are lots of "different" standards that frame manufacturers are using these days so it is not a huge comparison.

    Shimano and Campy can't even agree on the same freehub design and spacing now...your smoking crack if you think they will adhere to a "free" standard.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    324
    This 'standard' is incorrect. It is not 'keyed' to allow only one orientation of the cogs.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by uzurpator View Post
    This 'standard' is incorrect. It is not 'keyed' to allow only one orientation of the cogs.
    That is assuming things about how the cassette would be designed. Current cassettes already use a lot of one piece carriers that orient all of those cogs properly, and any loose cogs could have an interlocking key system or a pin or something that prevents them from being installed in the wrong orientation relative to the adjacent cog

    Current cassettes rely on the keyed freehub because it's already there and anything else would redundant

  12. #12
    Tool
    Reputation: Pedalphile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by uzurpator View Post
    This 'standard' is incorrect. It is not 'keyed' to allow only one orientation of the cogs.
    It could easily be an asymmetrical shape allowing only one orientation of cassette and/or individual cogs. No key required.
    I can barely get my mouth around it.

  13. #13
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,128
    while that seems like a great idea and a solution to a problem that actually exists. I think it will take off about as fast as Kirks 650b tire size. Which is another way of saying that if Shimano didn't bring it to market it will NEVER happen.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,560
    The polygon design works pretty well on e.thirteen cranks.

  15. #15
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,927
    looks awesome but i cant see it being embraced. shimano pretty much rules the roost here and unless they adopt it it will never catch on.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Daemon[CRO]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    349
    This seems like a good idea for a hub, but I believe problematic part lies in the cassette going onto this. Current grooves on hub allow cassette rings to align properly, and serve more purposes than just one. This hub has only three positions you can push in the cassette and the small rings which are separate from "main" cass body.

    Cassettes would have to be reinvented in order to fit onto this hub. The hole on the cassette would be asymmetrical as well (less meat and more meat on the rings). Etc.

    The hub - great idea. But let them show us how the cass would look like and how would it mount.
    Daemon
    "Worship the Machines."
    www.nivas.hr | www.worship.hr

  17. #17
    DIY all the way
    Reputation: Mr.Magura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,411
    The only issue I can see in that design, is that it leaves much less space for the bearings of the freehub body.
    Keying is not really an issue, as simple markers on the individual cogs would solve that.


    Magura

  18. #18
    I like mud
    Reputation: Patterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    288
    Great idea, I would buy one like that for sure...
    The Bike Race Database:
    www.meet4rides.com

  19. #19
    I should be studying...
    Reputation: frank daleview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    816
    Yeah, I knew that looked familiar--some one is using it for cranks, supposedly it has some military roots. I'm no engineer, but it looks like a great idea... and therefore doubtful that any of the big manufacturers will pick it up...at least not until we have 12 speed rear drive trains.
    Formerly known as iceaxe

  20. #20
    the catalan connection
    Reputation: What&son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,237

    Another standard?

    The only cogs that leave grooves at the freehub body are the ones not mounted on a spider. How is this new freehub meant to whitstand that? Forgive me,I donīt get it. If the 3D finite analysyis theyīve made as for testing is half clumsy as the 3D, I wonīt believe it.
    "Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us wordly evidence of the fact." George Elliot

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by What&son View Post
    The only cogs that leave grooves at the freehub body are the ones not mounted on a spider. How is this new freehub meant to whitstand that? Forgive me,I donīt get it. If the 3D finite analysyis theyīve made as for testing is half clumsy as the 3D, I wonīt believe it.
    I'm not really familiar with how these polygon interfaces and how the engineering really works out, but I do know that a lot of it boils down to the size of the contact area. All the torque put on a a normal splined cog is being applied to the freehub in only nine spots that are maybe 1/16" tall. A spider increases this area by going out horizontally and therefore spreads the force out, as does a wide-based singlespeed cog. With a polygon like this proposal it appears that the force would be applied (not evenly though) over the entire area from the thinnest point to the thickest point in the direction of rotation, and all that spread out over three "sides" of the polygon

  22. #22
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,788
    Do you think it would need to be tapered to avoid creaking?. With a tapered shape a puller would be required to remove a cogset.

  23. #23
    the catalan connection
    Reputation: What&son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn View Post
    I'm not really familiar with how these polygon interfaces and how the engineering really works out, but I do know that a lot of it boils down to the size of the contact area. All the torque put on a a normal splined cog is being applied to the freehub in only nine spots that are maybe 1/16" tall. A spider increases this area by going out horizontally and therefore spreads the force out, as does a wide-based singlespeed cog. With a polygon like this proposal it appears that the force would be applied (not evenly though) over the entire area from the thinnest point to the thickest point in the direction of rotation, and all that spread out over three "sides" of the polygon
    Hence, this 3 face shape increases contact area depending on how tight the cogs fit (thatīs why the taper shaped e-thirteen cranks 3 face interface), but at the same time you donīt want a single cog too tight fiting there becouse then even the slightest dig into the freehub body will leave the cog just stuck in it. The way to go is probably a spider, and thatīs already working on splined freehubs. I still donīt get it.
    "Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us wordly evidence of the fact." George Elliot

Similar Threads

  1. 2 in 1 Mojo - makes sense?
    By jever98 in forum Ibis
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-18-2008, 11:16 PM
  2. when wearing helmets makes no sense...
    By MTB-AHOLIC in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 04:30 PM
  3. when a helmet makes no sense
    By SHIVER ME TIMBERS in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-18-2007, 02:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •