Jump to content

New Products From Tensile


BikeDotStuffAtOnzaDotCom

Recommended Posts

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.

The only reason it curves is because I put 1000N of force into it to make sure it showed what was going on :lol:

Whatever you do, if it has the same general shape it'll still have that weak(er) point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would never bend like that though, as they are about 3 times to tall. :lol:

It does prove the point though, but I still think if the pawls were shaped like a wedge and the rachet was undercut, they wouldn't skip as much.

muelrachet.jpg

Like that, but neater and shit.

Even if it only leans over by 10 degrees or less, when you put pressure on the pedals it would drive the pawl down into the corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest on the chain tensioner is we are doing one for 14 and below and another for 19 and below. Subject of course to testing of the 19 below.

Good decision (Y)

Listening to riders like an intelligent business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 and below though. Not many people will buy one, I'd seriously be doing 16 and below and 19 and below.

The smallest sporcket used on a stock must be 14t on the back, 16 on the front. The 16 and under tensioner would be fine with a 14t sprocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, it would seem that if you run a rear freehub, 14 Tooth is the cog of choice with a 16 up front. The only reason to run a bigger rear is if you are using a Middleburn or similar crank which will not take less than a 20/22. From a weight issue alone, it makes sense to use as small a sprocket on both back and front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, it would seem that if you run a rear freehub, 14 Tooth is the cog of choice with a 16 up front. The only reason to run a bigger rear is if you are using a Middleburn or similar crank which will not take less than a 20/22. From a weight issue alone, it makes sense to use as small a sprocket on both back and front, however, for many people, strength issues seem to arise when running smaller rings, so it should also be taken into account that many people still run, and wish to continue running, their larger 22: and 20: setups (etc...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

is this refering too me saying about a 2/3 speed stock freehub? if so how has chris king patented a 3speed freehub so that no-one copies that idea when tons of companys all use simular 8/9 speed freehubs?surely someone patented them.

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris King patented the Ring Drive mechanism system which operates inside all their freehubs. It does not matter how many sprockets it runs, 1 up to 10, it is the drive mechanism which counts. The mechanism was not a new idea but applying it to bicycle hubs was. It uniquely does not use a pawl and ratchet system, but has a toothed ring drive system in which all 72 teeth engage in forward drive. The only similar system I know of is used in Huegi hubs made by DT Swiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is this refering too me saying about a 2/3 speed stock freehub? if so how has chris king patented a 3speed freehub so that no-one copies that idea when tons of companys all use simular 8/9 speed freehubs?surely someone patented them.

steve

i thought that for competitions it was necessary to have 6 gears?

the reason why hope freehubs are 6-speed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought i would post up some pics of my new tensile chain tensioner.

Havnt been able to ride it with it yet as i only just got home from work, but will be able to do a full days riding tomorrow, so can give reviews then.

First Impressions, looks very nice, and is so easy to put on/set up (Im told lol) (Y)

Scott

gallery_4916_1780_110100.jpg

gallery_4916_1780_120760.jpg

gallery_4916_1780_68370.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought i would post up some pics of my new tensile chain tensioner.

Havnt been able to ride it with it yet as i only just got home from work, but will be able to do a full days riding tomorrow, so can give reviews then.

First Impressions, looks very nice, and is so easy to put on/set up (Im told lol) (Y)

Scott

gallery_4916_1780_110100.jpg

gallery_4916_1780_120760.jpg

gallery_4916_1780_68370.jpg

Thats sweet its perfectly Lined up :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to fit the bolted section so it runs closer to the chainstay? As, if anything, that tensioners increased the length of the mech hanger with it pointing straight down, making it even more susceptible to getting hit. If there are other versions that keep the tensioner out the way i might look into picking one up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you ran a longer armed version, say a 18t version with a 15/16t cog and changed the b stop plug to the higher hole then it would raise the arm up a bit but its not gonna be horizontal from what i can make out. sorry mike, its a really nice looking product but i think thats a bit of a design flaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can see, there is a pin which goes against the mech hanger. In that pic the pin is in the lower position.

It would be very easy to rectify, just move the pin into the higher hole and file some material off the mech hanger, then rotate the lower section round where you can slide it in and out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can see, there is a pin which goes against the mech hanger. In that pic the pin is in the lower position.

It would be very easy to rectify, just move the pin into the higher hole and file some material off the mech hanger, then rotate the lower section round where you can slide it in and out.

Thats what i was afraid of. If it comes to having to bodge it and hack bits off my hanger just to run it properly then i'll stick with my homemade tensioner, its completely out the way, can be bashed without needing re-adjusting and cost a pound to make. The tensile one looks shinier though :ermm: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can see, there is a pin which goes against the mech hanger. In that pic the pin is in the lower position.

It would be very easy to rectify, just move the pin into the higher hole and file some material off the mech hanger, then rotate the lower section round where you can slide it in and out.

That would cause the jockey wheel to foul the sprocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would cause the jockey wheel to foul the sprocket.

I have since realised that Onza didn't listen to anyone saying make the arm longer. (N)

If you ran the long arm one with a 14t sprocket then you might get away with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you ran a longer armed version, say a 18t version with a 15/16t cog and changed the b stop plug to the higher hole then it would raise the arm up a bit but its not gonna be horizontal from what i can make out. sorry mike, its a really nice looking product but i think thats a bit of a design flaw.

yeah already mentioned that. shame because it looks nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...