BenLeacock™ Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 Tensioner looks mint, really nice price aswell If i ever brake 74kingz will defo be the one i try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Poyzer @ Onza Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 We have now designed a new extended arm which will take up to a 19 tooth. Now all you have to do is convince me that it will sell. Also do I do further consolidation to two sizes to cover the whole range or add this as a third one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 I think that it needs to be 15t and under, and 19t and under. Having three is pretty pointless.Say you have a 16t, you'd need the 19t and under, but in adding the extra three teeth, how much does the radius of the sprocket increase by? Surely it's not enough to warrant marketing three products.I might be missing something out, but I'd imagine the radius would only increase by about 3mm, which wouldn't make any difference would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balfa Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 We have now designed a new extended arm which will take up to a 19 tooth. Now all you have to do is convince me that it will sell. Also do I do further consolidation to two sizes to cover the whole range or add this as a third one.I'd buy a tensioner to fit a 18T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 If you were running 22t up front, whats the sprocket usually used on the back? I'm guessing 18/19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigjames Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 If you were running 22t up front, whats the sprocket usually used on the back? I'm guessing 18/19.18t, well thats what i run and the majority of people i know that run 22 up front Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 So a 19t and under and a 16t and under would be the best options?No point doing three legnths, it's just daft really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty M Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Would love to see a tensile freehub... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cai Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Would love to see a tensile freehub... Yeh.... I'd snatch a 116mm version anyday, because knowing Tensile it would just be a Chris King with an affordable price tag! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 I don't really understand why you would need different lengths. The Rohloff doesn't come in different lengths does it? I presume it would be a 'max sprocket size' so a 19t one would work for anything smaller than 19t? Seems fair to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Make a rear freehub, which works and behaves like a front tensile/rear pro 2, but is for Mod spacing.And crucially, has a disc mount! Like a cheaper version of a profile, but with a proper disc mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossMcd Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Make a rear freehub, which works and behaves like a front tensile/rear pro 2, but is for Mod spacing.And crucially, has a disc mount! Like a cheaper version of a profile, but with a proper disc mount.yea what he said!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 I've also been thinking about a new rachet that the pawls run in, rather than the flats for the pawls to grip on being vertical, they are leaning foward so even if you don't let it engage fully and the pawl is right near the tip of the rachet, is will slip down into the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 I've also been thinking about a new rachet that the pawls run in, rather than the flats for the pawls to grip on being vertical, they are leaning foward so even if you don't let it engage fully and the pawl is right near the tip of the rachet, is will slip down into the corner.If I understand what you mean (which I *think* I do, but feel free to correct me!) this would lead to slower overall engagement, as the ratchet mechanism would be traveling forward as the wheel rotates, and then back into the engagement again. It would, however be stronger, if the ratchet ring design was substantial enough, but it would probably be weaker than the equivalent if not thought about correctlyWould a mod freehub be feasable due to the small sprockets you guys run? I suppose it's just about there, so with a bit of thought it could be done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Token Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Would a mod freehub be feasable due to the small sprockets you guys run? I suppose it's just about there, so with a bit of thought it could be done Nah we'd just run larger rings up front if you couldn't fit a small sprocket on the rear. I'm sure you could get away with something as small as a 10tooth sprocket though if you needed too.Can you explain Muels ratchet system? Sounds quite interesting, just doesnt make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladd Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 Tensile Mod freehub *** pleaseee do it like the freewheel but in the rear with 72 engagement points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun H Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Can you explain Muels ratchet system? Sounds quite interesting, just doesnt make sense.I don't know wether this is enough:Just doing a quick FEA to help (hopefully). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun H Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 That's the normal one.This one's Muel's idea.As you can see with Muel's design the tooth has to be thinner and more stress accumulates at the edge I highlighted in my Paint diagram. Check the scales on the side and you can see that Muel's has a higher maximum stress value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Token Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 As you can see with Muel's design the tooth has to be thinner and more stress accumulates at the edge I highlighted in my Paint diagram. Check the scales on the side and you can see that Muel's has a higher maximum stress value.I'm actually really surprised you explained that so well, thanks alot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve@banbury-trials Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 tensile freehubthat would be mint,personally i'd like to see a design where it can run 2 or 3 sprockets ,kinda like a chrisking singlespeed.in 135mm spacing of coarse.steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Poyzer @ Onza Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 First of all let me say that we are working on freehub designs and have been for a considerable time. There is very little new in conventional ratchet and pawl systems and "muels" design has been used before. We are working on one particular patentable idea at the moment and we have other design concepts as well. There are a lot of patents still in place on freehubs and you have to navigate through them. I would make it clear that nobody soon will be producing a cheap Chris King copy as their mechanism is patented until 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 I can't see the pics dude, college blocks all picture hosting sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Nah we'd just run larger rings up front if you couldn't fit a small sprocket on the rear. I'm sure you could get away with something as small as a 10tooth sprocket though if you needed too.I know cassettes usually go down as far as 11t, though it would be nice if it were possible to beef these sprockets up a touch.Shaun has pretty much shown exactly what I meant in terms of the strength side of things, only far better than I could have done!The engagement would be an issue though I would imagine. It would mean finding a compromise between how much skew you put on the ratchet teeth, and how many points of engagement you had.More skew means less teeth for equal strength, meaning less, but stronger engagementMore teeth results in less skew, meaning 'normal' or reduced strength, but more engagement pointsHard to say without looking closely at it and doing some analysis though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Need to have the same spline as the deng sprockets, then you can use wide base ones and it will come off easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 I can see the pics now.I was thinking more like the first pic, but less tall and more undercut.The second one is sort of getting there, but it curves instead of being flat, and it's not undercut enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts