Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About
It is currently Thu May 26, 2016 12:09 pm
Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed ✔ FIXED
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken ✔ FIXED

If you find more errors please post it here: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=139062


All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:36 pm
Posts: 4123
<PRE>

</PRE>


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:13 pm
Posts: 617
Location: Netherlands
What about something like Shimano's Silent Clutch design? No pawls, no ratchet and supposedly instant engagement. Or is the design flawed?

EDIT, found this:
"Shimano silent clutch freehubs will function at 60 below with no special treatment. Instead of pawls, they drive through about two dozen eighth inch cylinders that roll into pockets and jam to drive, backing out a little to coast.

They’re called RO-80 and cost and look about the same as LX. They engage with less pedal motion at warm temperatures than pawl freehubs and take a little longer to engage at lower temperatures. While they always work at low temperatures, winterization brings them back to near-instant engagement no matter how cold it gets. They’re pretty much cold proof since they depend on the viscosity of the grease to move the rollers into engagement. They’re about 120 grams heavier than LX."

So it is currently heavier, but a redesign can probably be lighter.

True Precision uses a similar system in their Stealth hubs


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:20 am
Posts: 56
divve wrote:
<PRE>

</PRE>

:?:


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 456
Location: Portland, OR
CCCP wrote:
divve wrote:
<PRE>

</PRE>

:?:


Ah-hah! Don't have an answer for that one, do you?

Ok, just kidding. On the silent clutch thing, there have been a number of attempts at this in the past from Winner, Machine-Tech, Shimano and currently Gravity Zero. They all seemed to have a weight penalty because of the nature of the transmission of force from the casette body to the hub shell. In a roller clutch design, the force is transmitted radially outward from the cassette body against the hub shell to provide the holding force. The harder the cassette body is driven forward, the harder the rollers push against the hub shell to maintain a firm grip. This neccessitates a much stronger hub shell to accomodate the large radial forces driving it. In the case of more traditional "toothed" engagement systems, the majority of the engagement force is tangential to the hub shell and is carried by a tooth and pawl that are designed to withstand intense localized pressure.
So, would some kind of filament wound carbon spool be light and strong enough to contain the roller clutch system? Or, are teeth the way to go and could engagement lag be reduced by increasing the number of teeth and perhaps putting a positive angle on the faces of the two pieces that actually engage one another? It seems to me that this positive engagement angle would encourage complete engagement every time the two parts got close enough to touch. MAVIC and DT/Hugi have or have in the past had the engagement occur laterally, while all other versions seem to actuate radially. Which way makes more sense for material stresses and design? As you've got the axle and the Q/R already fighting against lateral dimension changes, it seems to me that you could make a simpler, lighter hub shell by actuating laterally. On the other hand, the radial actuation layout seems to do quite well with a small, light ring of material capable of withstanding the actual engagement forces to transmit them to the hub shell.
I can't wait to see the next improvement on this old design quandry. I hope somebody figures out the silent, instant engagement thing most of all.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:23 pm
Posts: 14
Location: Melbourne, Australia
...


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Seat tube design of Trek Domane SLR

in Road

kai-ming

12

762

Sun May 01, 2016 2:49 pm

mattr View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Lightweight Gen 3 and Gen 4 Freehub Question

in Road

audiophilitis

2

231

Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:21 am

audiophilitis View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Attachment(s) Advice on Freehub body

in Road

quaman26

2

208

Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:59 am

quaman26 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Ceramic freehub bearings?

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

PLuKE

21

1003

Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:16 pm

eric01 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. fulcrum racing 3 freehub

in Road

Panainz

10

735

Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:47 pm

Panainz View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CanadianBiker, Exabot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], peted76, Yahoo [Bot] and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited