Alun Goch Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 Right, with a freewheel up front, you get the amount of engagement points stated, i.e. one crank rotation gives 72 engagements, as on the eno (?)But on the back, the number of engagements through one crank rotation depends on the gearing, i.e. running a 1.5:1 ratio of gears would mean 108 engagements through a single crank rotation.Am I right? And if so, what do you guys think of making a really small rear freewheel, say 14t, 12 if possible, so mods could make the most of this??ALun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 You are right. However there is no point in making a small freewheel (apart from it being impossible if it is to be screwed on) because you can buy a freehub. Profile gives 72 EP on a 18:12 ratio, whereas a King will deliver 108 EP on the ratio given. Frankly speaking I see no difference between 72 and 108 clicks, it's just a gimmick.The reason for having a FW on the front is so that you don't have to have a huge chainring on the cranks to make up for a 18/16T freewheel on the rear. And this is BECAUSE you can't make very small freewheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 Freewheels on the back last alot longer than they would on the front aswell. Becuase alot of the force is taken away though the chain.This is why profile hubs are so popular, thy are bascily a 12t freewheel on the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isah Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 other advantages are that a ffw responds faster and theres more weight in the middle of the bike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Fel Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 Frankly speaking I see no difference between 72 and 108 clicks, it's just a gimmick.Thats ass talk my friend.(normally I'd say arse but that deserved an americanism.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 It's not that you get more engagments though, it's just that you'll engage faster. With the 1:1.5 ratio and a 72ep hub, you'll have to move the cranks 3.3° max to engage the hub/freewheel. With a 72click freewheel up front, you'll have to move it 5°. There's not a huge amount of difference, really...The chain doesn't take the 'stress' away from the freewheel either, it's just that the front sprocket does. The difference in freewheel size and the way the chain goes around it (differently compared to being on the front or rear) makes a difference too.I wouldn't say they lasted a hell of a lot longer on the back; if you take care of an ACS Claw (i.e. get some threadlock on the go or weld it shut) then it'll last a good length of time up front too. I'd still only ever want an Eno or a Tensile up front, but some people seem to like the Claws, so meh...There are 14t and 13t freewheels around now, but the internals have to be f**king small on them to fit them all in. The pawls and the ratchet they click into have to be really, really dinky, so they won't be as strong.EDIT: If we're gonna get this anal about it - don't forget that there'll be fractionally less chainslack on a FFW bike as the rear sprocket forces the freewheel round it'll take up some slack, so that'll give you a slightly faster engagement for the actual freewheel on a FFW bike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.