Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 78
  1. #26
    West Chester, PA
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,190
    Quote Originally Posted by teamdicky View Post
    The big bearing was the major cause of drag... eliminated.

    The springs were prone to damage, especially during rebuilds if hamfistedly done (I did it once... oops).

    Fewer small parts.

    Easier to maintain. Just pop it off, clean it up, and stick it back on. No tools.

    I remember something about the angle of engagement on the pawls...

    Reduced the points of contact on pawls from three to two.

    Certainly not less burly, past the looks of it.
    My amateur engineer alter-ego doesn't like how the pawls mount to the freehub on the new design. Looks like a downgrade to the standard way of doing it. The "C" that the pawls slide into... that thin area at the top... it's deformed or cracked on other brands of hubs. On the old version it looks like it would be nearly impossible for the torque on the pawls to deform the mounting points. I don't know... just talking out loud. Time will tell.

  2. #27
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by 92gli View Post
    My amateur engineer alter-ego doesn't like how the pawls mount to the freehub on the new design. Looks like a downgrade to the standard way of doing it. The "C" that the pawls slide into... that thin area at the top... it's deformed or cracked on other brands of hubs. On the old version it looks like it would be nearly impossible for the torque on the pawls to deform the mounting points. I don't know... just talking out loud. Time will tell.
    The only thing holding the springs in before were the springs. They just sat in the saddles.
    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

    I get paid 3 every time I post on MTBR.

  3. #28
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,795
    My impression is that it looks simplified. I wouldn't say it's worse. I consider it smarter. The older one looked intricate, more like art-level quality. This one seems more for performance. It's not like the free hub bearings carries a significant the load, such as from the wheel, as the load is carried from the rim, to the spokes, to the hub flanges, to the hub shell bearings, to the axle. Larger diameter bearings with more bearings in them might be more durable and carry loads better, but smaller diameter bearings with fewer balls, spin more freely. Good choice in bearings if you want speed. Looks like the freewheel mech got bigger, while the bearings got smaller, and they fit the biggest axles that they could in them. They simplified the hub shell too to reduce mill time, and probably don't even need their fancy 4-axis machine to make it, maybe reserving it to mill/tap the spoke holes.

    Not sure if they are 100% correct about that particular large diameter bearing being the culprit for drag. I thought the drag came from simply having 6 pawls with more surface area contact and pawl springs absorbing the spinning inertia, without returning it. Fewer pawls and lighter springs = less drag when coasting. The believe that the axle doesn't spin and the freehub bearing don't spin when coasting, only the hub shell bearings do. The freehub bearings turn when you pedal or backpedal--a large diameter bearing on the freehub body is definitely overkill.

    Interesting thing about the King's hub design is that the drive side hub shell bearing rests on the freehub shell, and with the freehub shell also somewhat solidly connected to the drivering inside the hub, it makes the freehub carry a good deal of the load, unlike DT's design, able to spread the load out over wider spaced bearings. Likely part of the reason why King hubs are considered durable. Still, I wish they were faster.
    Last edited by Varaxis; 02-28-2013 at 02:27 PM.

  4. #29
    I wonder why?
    Reputation: i1dry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    546
    I've got CK, I9 (both proprietary and classic), and DT hubs. I like to do a lot of technical riding so "instant" engagement is more important to me than weight or drag. All of them are quality hubs though.

    Based on my experiences, I'd rate these hubs as follows:

    Engagement: Best - I9, second - CK, third - DT
    Drag: Least - DT, second - I9, third - CK
    Durability: Best - I9, second - CK, third - DT
    Serviceability: Easiest - CK, close second - I9 and DT
    Customer service: Best I9, poor second CK, and poorest by far - DT
    Weight: Lightest - DT, second CK, third I9

    I've had zero problems with the I9 hubs, but have had both CK and DT rear hub shells crack. The CK cracked around a rotor bolt hole and a DT shell cracked catastrophically (i.e. the shell basically broke into three or four pieces). Both CK and DT ultimately replaced the hubs, but both companies were a huge hassle do deal with on top of being really slow to respond to communications. CK took at least 4 months to replace the hub and DT took over a year.

    Based on my experiences, if I could only use one of the three, I'd go with the I-9s (either proprietary or classic).

    i1dry?
    ...some drink from the fountain of knowledge..some only gargle...!!

  5. #30
    reading comprehension wat
    Reputation: dv8xin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    329
    Tried to find out how fast my CK hubs rolled and got the impression that they weren't that fast. With a caveman-like test, in terms of scientific accuracy, some cheap shimano hubs rolled the fastest, followed by my beater commuter road bike's hubs, followed by DT, and dead last was CK.

    Riding on the trail, it was weighing on my mind that they were slow. About 4-5 miles in, I tried loosening the preload a bit that allowed a slight amount of play; I don't know if it warmed up and the lube got thin or what, but it felt a lot faster. I took out the axle at home to check out how smooth and free the bearings were, individually. They weren't silent, and sounded kind of clacky, but I think that's just the retainer making sounds. I took off the retaining ring and the black rubber seal and inspected it closely (under high magnification) and it looked clean and smooth. Before putting some lube on the bearings, I spun them, and noticed that the bearings spun much more freely. It wouldn't free spin for more than a fraction of a rotation, but compared to the other side with the seal still on, there was a vast difference in drag.

    I think CK should consider switching from their rubber and retaining ring seal to something else, to address the excessive seal drag. If you're an XC racer, they might be costing you a few seconds/watts due to the weight and drag, but still plenty of good reason for other people to get them, as long as they value things such as longevity, precision, and general craftsmanship.

    Edit for clarity.
    Last edited by dv8xin; 03-14-2013 at 12:52 AM.

  6. #31
    reading comprehension wat
    Reputation: dv8xin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    329
    In other words, I kind of agree with the others. CK is heavy, expensive, and rolls relatively slow, but is US made, made to be durable/long-lasting, serviceable, comes in many colors, and is from a company that run in a respectable manner. Money going to them is money going into good principles. If you demand outright performance, check out another brand. If you appreciate precision and American products made to last, as opposed to being made cost effectively (ie. cheaply) and disposable, CK is a good choice.

    If I were to do it again, even I would have a hard time choosing. I would probably just have gone XTR Trail, since they were on sale for $450/set. Or Easton Haven Carbon, since they're on sale for about $1000-1200; I would prefer one with the 142x12 rear, since it comes with the M1-121 hub with that's compatible with that spacer and preload fix, but I run a QR rear on my frame and the sale sets are QR rear only, which sadly, have that loose preload adjuster issue, and even with a NQA guarantee, having such issues isn't cool. For 29ers, I dunno... wait for an Enve/DT 240s/DT Aerolite or CX Ray combo to pop up used for around $1500-1650, I guess.

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    241
    there is no better hub made than chris king. sets with over 20k miles made in the 90s are still going strong after rebuilds today.

    you also have extremely strong resale should you ever want to sell them

    king hubs literally can be a multi decade investment

  8. #33
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    King all day long
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,750
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    King all day long
    They just need to come out with the frickin' XX1 freehub body. Actually this is the only thing preventing me from blowing a grand, so maybe they should wait. Yeah... my wife thinks they should wait.

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    They just need to come out with the frickin' XX1 freehub body. Actually this is the only thing preventing me from blowing a grand, so maybe they should wait. Yeah... my wife thinks they should wait.
    Has anyone talked to CK re a release date of XX1 compatibility?

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Simplemind View Post
    Has anyone talked to CK re a release date of XX1 compatibility?
    Someone earlier posted not in 2013. I just went 1x10. Working great!

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Someone earlier posted not in 2013. I just went 1x10. Working great!
    Thanks, may have to go with Project 321 then. Running 1X10 now, but the XX1 not only gives an extra gear, but the noise and chain slap is reduced.

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Simplemind View Post
    Thanks, may have to go with Project 321 then. Running 1X10 now, but the XX1 not only gives an extra gear, but the noise and chain slap is reduced.
    I'm using a Wolftooth Components chainring and an XTR Shadow Plus rear derailleur, thereby capturing both of those features. All I'm missing is the extra gear.

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gmats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,206
    I've been using both. They're both great, the I9 has bit less drag while coasting. While pedaling, about the same. The CK's easily use off the shelf spokes. The I9's use propriety spokes. However, if you use the right hub, I9's are able to use off the shelf spokes. I've had many, many, many years with my CK's without any kind of issue. The I9's are still only about a year of use. In the end, I think I like CK's better because of their reliability, ease of maintenance.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    282

    Chris King or Industry 9 hubs ?????

    I9 Torch Classic. Chris King is probably a better design, but you pay for it in weight. The I9 torch is the first high engagement hub that is also light.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by kroe View Post
    I9 Torch Classic. Chris King is probably a better design, but you pay for it in weight. The I9 torch is the first high engagement hub that is also light.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    I never read anyone arguing with CK quality. However since their current design doesn't lend itself to XX1, a solution will not come soon enough for me.
    I like the Torch design on paper and if the quality is up to par with my current I9's, then that's probably one of the best current options.

  17. #42
    MarkyMark
    Reputation: MarkMass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,005
    I went with Kings on DT Swiss XRC330 carbon hoops using Phil Wood (Sapim) double-butted spokes and Sapim brass nipples. Thanks to Ford at Tread in Campbell, CA for building these up for me.

    Front w/15mm SD hub was 615 grams
    Rear w/135mm QR hub was 850 grams

    I put a Conti Mountain King on the front and a Conti Race King on the rear. The first ride was this past weekend at Demo in Santa Cruz and it was a success. My GF says the new wheels rolls a lot faster than the Reynolds Carbon AM wheelset (w/ F=Mutanoraptor, R=Crossmark) it replaced. The Kings built up lighter than the Reynolds, but I was surprised since the King rear hub still had drag from being brand new.

    DT Swiss XRC330 w/ Chris King Hubs

    DT Swiss XRC330s w/ Chris King Hubs

    I'll probably try the I9 Torch hubs on my next set of wheels.

  18. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bailey44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    721
    Since I just went with XX1, I gave my wife my CK wheels.

    I went with Crossmax just because I have never tried them.





    I still have CK on my roadie






    Quote Originally Posted by Simplemind View Post
    Thanks, may have to go with Project 321 then. Running 1X10 now, but the XX1 not only gives an extra gear, but the noise and chain slap is reduced.

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flipnidaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,415
    Have had all of the mentioned rear hubs... A few sets of CK's, DT-Swiss 240, 340, 440, Hugi, I9 Original and Torch, Hadley, Hope, Shimano, etc.... I would rank them as follows:
    I9 Torch- I've only had them a few months but they have way less drag than the original and is almost DT-Swiss 240 light.
    DT-Swiss- I've used a version of them for the past 20 years. None have failed (including the original Hugi hubs I'm still using on a commuter). The POE needs improvement however.
    CK- Heavier and more drag but bulletproof.
    Shimano- Best spinning hubs when adjusted perfectly.

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    311
    is the I9 Torch hub engagement as fantastic as it seems it should be? i have a Hadley and love it. i can't help but wonder what even greater engagement would be like, on a lighter hub yet. thinking of the next bike/wheelset...

  21. #46
    Stand back
    Reputation: dbabuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by racebum View Post
    there is no better hub made than chris king. sets with over 20k miles made in the 90s are still going strong after rebuilds today.

    you also have extremely strong resale should you ever want to sell them

    king hubs literally can be a multi decade investment
    Until the industry standards change. Again.
    Golden Bike Park

    Golden Connector Trails need your support!

  22. #47
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,939

    Chris King or Industry 9 hubs ?????

    Quote Originally Posted by dbabuser View Post
    Until the industry standards change. Again.
    Right... when industry standards change CK hubs are pre-programmed to self destruct. Erasing years of reliable service instantly.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    311
    today on the trail i came across a guy who was on a very unique bike. a custom Zinn. he was 6'9" and 300 pounds. i was eyeballing his ride and we got talking. every thing on it was specialized for his size. Chris Holm wheels, custom 210 cranks, etc. 39 pound trail bike 29er. he told me he routinely broke hubs and taco'd wheels for a couple years when he first started riding 10 yrs ago, then he got the Holm's with King hubs and he said that was the end of that. i like my Hadley's but it seems it would be hard to argue with the durability of King's given that giant's experience. he was a big technical climber too, which is where he said he would break hubs. visiting from north Vancouver, so he knows steeps.

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    480
    Project 321 now has newer lighter than ever at 285g for rear hub with i9 innards, they seam to have better end caps and bearing design with adjustable preload. Project 321 are great to deal with.

  25. #50
    Chris Bling
    Reputation: dustyduke22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,042
    I have had a set of Kings since 2007. Still rolling strong. I would like to see some other hubs that will last that long and still perform as they did when they were new.

    They are few and far between
    The obsession of wheels fused with the passion of cycling
    Affordable Custom Wheels

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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