Chris King Hub Need Obsolete?

[Matt Vandart]

I was thinking one of the major advantages of the Chris king hub is it's amazing pick up.

I have ridden bikes with these hubs on them and they are very good if not amazing.

Now that tensile have a 96 click freewheel out which should, going by other tensiles standard, be pretty amazing too, and other companies such as echo have similar products, do you think the advantage/cost of a Chris King hub ratio is getting worse.

By that I mean a 96 click freewheel will have amazing pick up with tensile reliability and cost a hell of alot less, so if it f**ks up you just get another one.

You could have quite a few freewheels for the price of a King.

What do you think?

Matt

[LukasMcNeal]

I was thinking one of the major advantages of the Chris king hub is it's amazing pick up.

I have ridden bikes with these hubs on them and they are very good if not amazing.

Now that tensile have a 96 click freewheel out which should, going by other tensiles standard, be pretty amazing too, and other companies such as echo have similar products, do you think the advantage/cost of a Chris King hub ratio is getting worse.

By that I mean a 96 click freewheel will have amazing pick up with tensile reliability and cost a hell of alot less, so if it f**ks up you just get another one.

You could have quite a few freewheels for the price of a King.

What do you think?

Matt

I agree but I think a king is like a Ferrari or lambo yeah there good but a ford does the same job of getting from a to b.

[Revolver]

CKs are good because the EPs all engage at the same time. With a pawl-type freewheel system, to have more EPs needs smaller EPs and smaller pawls, which eventually causes the need to compromise between EPs and how shit the EPs are. In a CK, this isn't the case. However, at £360 or so () a hub, they're a bit much, and they were even before a good high-EP pawl freewheel came out.

[JT!]

I agree, I've never even considered a king due to the price range and horror stories about it skipping 180 degrees. I'd rather have 3 enos.

[Jason222]

I've had kings and freewheels for about the same amount of time. My kings have skipped wayyy more! Freewheel is the future IMO, there really isn't a need for kings anymore.

[.mitch]

Back in the day, I think they did justify themselves moreso than these days.

I had mine for about 6 years, paid about $500 for it (about £258). Looked after it, cleaned it maybe once every 18 months.

Back then, there was ACS claws, King, Shimano silentclutch, maybe Profile... and that's it.

Come 2009, decided to go front fw, sold it and it's still going strong.

But now there are freewheels with over 72 ep's, and much more affordable for the average punter. Whether 5 freewheels are more reliable than 1 King, I'm not sure.. high engagement fw's are still relatively young.

So yes, I think there is still a place for the ol' CK hub, but the fw is much cheaper in the immediate short term.

[tryallmaster]

I have a king atm and considering a ffw.

If I was to ask a question like... which one is the strongest? (considering I broke 3 pro 2 in the space of a month)

I have had my king for 10 months and its still going strong. It was bedded in correctly etc.

What happens when a ffw skips and destroys? Any nasty stories?

Cheers,

Lewis.

[Mike W]

Just sold my king to go ffw, i have got the tensile 96 click on my gu now

[cultiv8ed_mike]

I've had the same king since Oct 2003 and its been awesome! Skips are very rare, generally if it is skipping it needs servicing. Before my King I destroyed several Hope XC and Bulb hubs. I've also had a Pro 2 and didn't get a single skip out of that. I'd say if you have the cash, get a king but if you are on a budget get a pro 2, or a ffw (never had one personally).

[Matt Vandart]

Just sold my king to go ffw, i have got the tensile 96 click on my gu now

Any good?

Matt

[Greetings]

I think the answer is much more simple:

- King hubs were made popular when there were no good freewheels around, in those times King hubs didn't skip, were of good quality and it was worth getting one.

- Nowadays there are lots of good freewheels, at the same time King hubs have gotten very poor, they don't work properly and are very weak.

[tryallmaster]

I think the answer is much more simple:

- King hubs were made popular when there were no good freewheels around, in those times King hubs didn't skip, were of good quality and it was worth getting one.

- Nowadays there are lots of good freewheels, at the same time King hubs have gotten very poor, they don't work properly and are very weak.

I totally disagree here... I destroyed 3 pro 2's in a month and my king is as strong as ever!!! I have seen ffw fall apart.

[psycholist]

The Chris King hub's strength in engagement is also it's weakness. When it's clean and working correctly it distributes the load over all 72 teeth in the drive rings and the helical section on the floating drive ring forces the teeth together more the harder you push on the pedals, so it's engagement is amazingly strong. However one half decent sized bit of grit between the drive rings means none of the teeth can engage correctly, with only a few teeth transferring any drive (Which will be a higher load then they're designed for, leading to damaged drive rings which may skip even after cleaning) and no certainty of the drive engaging at all, leading to very nasty accidents.

A freewheel by comparison will sound like complete crap if there's enough dirt in it to stop the pawls engaging, so you can't say you didn't get warning. Also when a freewheel skips it will jump to the next slot in the ratchet ring rather than spinning for the full crank push. The high EP freewheels don't use smaller teeth in the ratchet ring either, they use independent sets of pawls, two sets of 3 in the case of an ENO freewheel (Which in terms of the metals used, the manufacturing precision, the durability and the availability of spares is justifiably the best freewheel on the market in my opinion), so the ratchet ring has 36 big teeth (10 deg per tooth), every second ratchet pawl is long, so one set of pawls engages at 0 deg while the second engages at 5 deg, so things would have to go seriously wrong before a freewheel of this design slips as one set of pawls skipping would require 3 different engagements to all fail at the same time and even if they do the three offset pawls are waiting 5 deg of turn later to engage in fresh ratchet ring slots (Each pawl is 60 degrees offset, so the same ratchet ring slot that skipped on the first set of pawls will not be loaded by the second set in picking up after the skip).

Given it can't be assumed that parts are always perfectly clean and in perfect adjustment, pawl based drive setups win. In rear hubs where the drive ring is a smaller diameter and often made from thinner steel than on a freewheel getting a lot of clicks is a little more hit and miss compared to freewheels, so it's a tougher decision if you want a rear freewheel, but I'd pick the Hope trials hub over a Chris King if I was speccing a rear freewheel bike and I don't think Hope hubs are desperately well engineered.

[Katkin]

The Chris King hub's strength in engagement is also it's weakness. When it's clean and working correctly it distributes the load over all 72 teeth in the drive rings and the helical section on the floating drive ring forces the teeth together more the harder you push on the pedals, so it's engagement is amazingly strong. However one half decent sized bit of grit between the drive rings means none of the teeth can engage correctly, with only a few teeth transferring any drive (Which will be a higher load then they're designed for, leading to damaged drive rings which may skip even after cleaning) and no certainty of the drive engaging at all, leading to very nasty accidents.

A freewheel by comparison will sound like complete crap if there's enough dirt in it to stop the pawls engaging, so you can't say you didn't get warning. Also when a freewheel skips it will jump to the next slot in the ratchet ring rather than spinning for the full crank push. The high EP freewheels don't use smaller teeth in the ratchet ring either, they use independent sets of pawls, two sets of 3 in the case of an ENO freewheel (Which in terms of the metals used, the manufacturing precision, the durability and the availability of spares is justifiably the best freewheel on the market in my opinion), so the ratchet ring has 36 big teeth (10 deg per tooth), every second ratchet pawl is long, so one set of pawls engages at 0 deg while the second engages at 5 deg, so things would have to go seriously wrong before a freewheel of this design slips as one set of pawls skipping would require 3 different engagements to all fail at the same time and even if they do the three offset pawls are waiting 5 deg of turn later to engage in fresh ratchet ring slots (Each pawl is 60 degrees offset, so the same ratchet ring slot that skipped on the first set of pawls will not be loaded by the second set in picking up after the skip).

Given it can't be assumed that parts are always perfectly clean and in perfect adjustment, pawl based drive setups win. In rear hubs where the drive ring is a smaller diameter and often made from thinner steel than on a freewheel getting a lot of clicks is a little more hit and miss compared to freewheels, so it's a tougher decision if you want a rear freewheel, but I'd pick the Hope trials hub over a Chris King if I was speccing a rear freewheel bike and I don't think Hope hubs are desperately well engineered.

See, get a freewheel, I need a new cooker!

Kat xx

Edited September 1, 2009 by Katkin

[Matt Vandart]

Thanks for that Psycholist,

That is the sort of detailed answer I was hoping for.

And for all the other replies.

I hope a King advocate comes on and supports King hubs in such detail.

Matt

[Shaun H]

I would use even a 10+ year old CK over any freewheel/pawl based drivetrain any day.

With a King you buy one, look after it, and you never need to buy another freewheel/hub again.

The majority (I know N.Wood had a bad experience despite good care) of CK horror stories tend to be from poor maintenance and/or poor bedding in procedure. So if you don't intend to look after your £300 hub (and at that price you'd have to be a nutter not to!) then a King ain't for you!

[aener]

Mine was absolutely spot on. Boumsong had it for a few years - and he ain't light, OR smooth.

He snapped the axle - but this thread's mostly about engagements.

It's never skipped on me, and by the time I got it, it was 5th hand. Only taken it off, as I was a willy and ran a cassette cog on it for too long, and killed the driveshell.

Pro II Trials on the way as I got it 60 posted, and even an ally driveshell is 55, unposted.

Edited September 1, 2009 by aener

[Shaun H]

The Chris King hub's strength in engagement is also it's weakness. When it's clean and working correctly it distributes the load over all 72 teeth in the drive rings and the helical section on the floating drive ring forces the teeth together more the harder you push on the pedals, so it's engagement is amazingly strong. However one half decent sized bit of grit between the drive rings means none of the teeth can engage correctly, with only a few teeth transferring any drive (Which will be a higher load then they're designed for, leading to damaged drive rings which may skip even after cleaning) and no certainty of the drive engaging at all, leading to very nasty accidents.

The CK is sealed pretty damn well, grit that big is going to have an extremely difficult time getting in! In fact I'd say the seals would need to be faulty for that to occur to the degree you're suggesting!

The tiny particles that accumulate over time in a King are from wear of the mechanical parts and infintisemly small bits of dirt and some oil ingested from the drivetrain. These can build up if you don't service you're hub often enough and can slow the movement of the internals if left long enough to a point that can cause skipping.

A freewheel by comparison will sound like complete crap if there's enough dirt in it to stop the pawls engaging, so you can't say you didn't get warning. Also when a freewheel skips it will jump to the next slot in the ratchet ring rather than spinning for the full crank push. The high EP freewheels don't use smaller teeth in the ratchet ring either, they use independent sets of pawls, two sets of 3 in the case of an ENO freewheel (Which in terms of the metals used, the manufacturing precision, the durability and the availability of spares is justifiably the best freewheel on the market in my opinion), so the ratchet ring has 36 big teeth (10 deg per tooth), every second ratchet pawl is long, so one set of pawls engages at 0 deg while the second engages at 5 deg, so things would have to go seriously wrong before a freewheel of this design slips as one set of pawls skipping would require 3 different engagements to all fail at the same time and even if they do the three offset pawls are waiting 5 deg of turn later to engage in fresh ratchet ring slots (Each pawl is 60 degrees offset, so the same ratchet ring slot that skipped on the first set of pawls will not be loaded by the second set in picking up after the skip).

I think you can agree that most freewheels don't have the same sealing levels as a CK. Therefore it's reasonable to expect larger debris to enter the mechanism right? These bits of grit can get between the pawls and the inside body of the freewheel (the pivot area if that makes sense?) and majorly slow the return action of the pawl and increase chances of a skip (and I believe a small skip can be just as disastrous as a big one!). What I'm saying is, the freewheel pawl mechanism's supposed better resistance to debris influence is offset by it's poorer sealing properties.

Given it can't be assumed that parts are always perfectly clean and in perfect adjustment, pawl based drive setups win. In rear hubs where the drive ring is a smaller diameter and often made from thinner steel than on a freewheel getting a lot of clicks is a little more hit and miss compared to freewheels, so it's a tougher decision if you want a rear freewheel, but I'd pick the Hope trials hub over a Chris King if I was speccing a rear freewheel bike and I don't think Hope hubs are desperately well engineered.

A friend of mine has broken several Pro2 hubs over the past couple of years. It's resulted in wasted petrol and in one instance wasted competition entry fees! All together with postage to send them off for warranty and what not he could have got himself a King instead and have had his drivetrain sorted for years and years to come!

I personally believe the reliability and long term durability of CK hubs outweighs their cost when compared to pawl-type mechanisms.

[psycholist]

From what I've read on the Chris King website they don't seal their hubs particularly well as good seals mean more drag. For trials use really good levels of sealing are less of an issue than for XC, but the consequences of dirt in the mechanism are far more severe. A freewheel with dirt in it will sound pretty horrible long before the dirt is at enough of a level to cause a skip, so its inherently a safer choice (ENO freewheels are anyway, I can't comment on the build quality of others). It also appears that current model Chris Kings are a lot weaker than they were 10 years ago, so old hubs are outlasting new ones. The fact King don't warranty their hubs for trials use is the final nail in the coffin though.

[Shaun H]

From what I've read on the Chris King website they don't seal their hubs particularly well as good seals mean more drag. For trials use really good levels of sealing are less of an issue than for XC, but the consequences of dirt in the mechanism are far more severe. A freewheel with dirt in it will sound pretty horrible long before the dirt is at enough of a level to cause a skip, so its inherently a safer choice (ENO freewheels are anyway, I can't comment on the build quality of others). It also appears that current model Chris Kings are a lot weaker than they were 10 years ago, so old hubs are outlasting new ones. The fact King don't warranty their hubs for trials use is the final nail in the coffin though.

Their hubs are more than adequately sealed thanks to tight tolerances leading to reduced drag for a given seal. Once again I'll say, large pieces of grit entering is an extremely imporbably occurance. The dirt that causes skips builds up over time thanks to normal use and is why Kings should be serviced a little more regularly than pawl type freehubs.

Also if you pay attention to it, you can hear you King become much quieter when it's a getting a little mucky inside. Admittedly it is not as obvious a sign as a grinding freewheel but it's there.

I've seen enough broken ENOs (usually pawls sometimes outer bodies) to make me feel I've chosen the right drivetrain (which is yet to need anything replaced at 5+ years and 2 owners old I might add).

I'd like to see evidence of CKs becoming weaker as well. People seem to have trouble with new ones because they are put straight onto a trials bike and ridden hard, rather than having a few miles put under them first. Also I read in a recentish topic a little honesty with Chris King warranty and they are likely to help you out.

[psycholist]

I think to a degree we're splitting hairs on this subject though. King hubs are made extremely well and for the most part work extremely well too. The sealing is good enough to stop big lumps of grit getting in, but given they skip every so often it indicates that enough dirt must be getting in to cause this. The likelihood of a skip being serious enough to leave you eating pavement when the skip does happen are higher with the Chris King compared to a pawl based freewheel and that's my biggest issue rather than the cost.

I think freewheels give performance at least as good as Chris King hubs but because they cost so much less they make the decision to buy a Chris King seem wasteful (There may be weight saving reasons if the lightest build possible is your aim, but it's pretty close on that front too AFAIK).

I've been running an ENO on my bike since the start of 2008. In that time I had one look inside after a couple of months to confirm it was still pristine and have done nothing more in terms of minding or maintenance - I'm usually out 3 or 4 times a week riding it too and I'm anything but light. If as Tarty Adam has alluded to in a different thread here, Middleburn are now making freewheel compatible cranks (The main issues with running front freewheels is that all the cranks available are junk compared to Middleburn cranks, poor thread reliability rather than snapping cranks though, so very little potential for nasty injuries, just inconvenience and extra cost) there is no reason left to pay out for a Chris King if strength and reliability in the overall drivetrain are your priorities.

[N.Wood]

<snippety snip>

How long have you owned a King for?

[Shaun H]

I think to a degree we're splitting hairs on this subject though. King hubs are made extremely well and for the most part work extremely well too. The sealing is good enough to stop big lumps of grit getting in, but given they skip every so often it indicates that enough dirt must be getting in to cause this. The likelihood of a skip being serious enough to leave you eating pavement when the skip does happen are higher with the Chris King compared to a pawl based freewheel and that's my biggest issue rather than the cost.

But if you look after that King hub then the chances of a skip actually ever occuring are very low. (nil in my case thus far)

EDIT: I might also add that most people who do have King skips will actually get them in a "warning" way. I.E. they'll skip whilst pottering about because the pedal force is lower and engagement not as strong. This lets them know they need to clean that hub out ASAP. Rather than pawl setups which become more likely to smash your face as you put more power in...

I think freewheels give performance at least as good as Chris King hubs but because they cost so much less they make the decision to buy a Chris King seem wasteful (There may be weight saving reasons if the lightest build possible is your aim, but it's pretty close on that front too AFAIK).

The performance of a King is undoubtedly better than a freewheel though? Smoother, stronger and (in most cases) more reliable engagement. Even most freewheel owners would agree to that. It's just most people can't justify the cost and/or can't swallow the short-term price in exchange for the long-term saving.

I've been running an ENO on my bike since the start of 2008. In that time I had one look inside after a couple of months to confirm it was still pristine and have done nothing more in terms of minding or maintenance - I'm usually out 3 or 4 times a week riding it too and I'm anything but light. If as Tarty Adam has alluded to in a different thread here, Middleburn are now making freewheel compatible cranks (The main issues with running front freewheels is that all the cranks available are junk compared to Middleburn cranks, poor thread reliability rather than snapping cranks though, so very little potential for nasty injuries, just inconvenience and extra cost) there is no reason left to pay out for a Chris King if strength and reliability in the overall drivetrain are your priorities.

You do realise that most King users use these cranks as well!? The "problem" of poor quality FFW cranks applies to both arguements!

Edited September 1, 2009 by Shaun H

[Matt Vandart]

From what I've read on the Chris King website they don't seal their hubs particularly well as good seals mean more drag. For trials use really good levels of sealing are less of an issue than for XC, but the consequences of dirt in the mechanism are far more severe. A freewheel with dirt in it will sound pretty horrible long before the dirt is at enough of a level to cause a skip, so its inherently a safer choice (ENO freewheels are anyway, I can't comment on the build quality of others). It also appears that current model Chris Kings are a lot weaker than they were 10 years ago, so old hubs are outlasting new ones. The fact King don't warranty their hubs for trials use is the final nail in the coffin though.

Good point.

Do White industries?

Their hubs are more than adequately sealed thanks to tight tolerances leading to reduced drag for a given seal. Once again I'll say, large pieces of grit entering is an extremely imporbably occurance. The dirt that causes skips builds up over time thanks to normal use and is why Kings should be serviced a little more regularly than pawl type freehubs.

Also if you pay attention to it, you can hear you King become much quieter when it's a getting a little mucky inside. Admittedly it is not as obvious a sign as a grinding freewheel but it's there.

I've seen enough broken ENOs (usually pawls sometimes outer bodies) to make me feel I've chosen the right drivetrain (which is yet to need anything replaced at 5+ years and 2 owners old I might add).

I'd like to see evidence of CKs becoming weaker as well. People seem to have trouble with new ones because they are put straight onto a trials bike and ridden hard, rather than having a few miles put under them first. Also I read in a recentish topic a little honesty with Chris King warranty and they are likely to help you out.

This is my main issue with King hubs. Even more than the money.

I like 116mm frames so I'm gonna need a BMX hub.

Now the standard answer to running in a Chris King is to give it to some XC bitch and let them bed it in for you.

How can I do this with a BMX hub?

Also, lack of disc brake compatibility in this category is a bit disappointing also (however completely understandable)

Mat

Edited September 1, 2009 by Matt Vandart

[cai]

Build the king onto a rim, put a bald/crap tyre on and whack it on the bike - now put the back wheel/whole bike on a treadmill for a few miles.