DT Star ratchet is very effective,a bit loud and sometimes a skips if the mechanic that services the hubs puts regular grease in there instead of the DT grease.
Yes, that is one disadvantage of the Hügi; where the friction/resistance between the clutch plates caused by a high-viscosity grease is greater than the spring's tension.. But that is easily remedied - You just have to use the right grease.
DT patents are going to stand in your way if you want to go commercial venture with this.Hub, especially for bicycles and the like
US Patent: 6,588,564
There is the patent assigned to DT Swiss, relative to the Hügi engagement mechanism design which would prevent me from reproducing an alike mechanism in my design. For which reason, I contacted DT Swiss, who have offered to provide all of the Hügi internals for a hub. But, I do not wish to produce something that isn't my own...
The 3 pawls design is good but the Am Classic 6 pawl tangential system is better by far and requires no spring just a guide plate/toothed ring for the pawls to engage,but yet again patents probably are owned by Am Classic,but I've seen Taiwan manufacturers that have hubs that are similar to it.
To what I know, there are no patents attached to this design for the reason that it is a universal design.
I am currently considering the option of a 'take' upon this design, further refining it to decrease "engagement time"; the period it takes between a force of the freehub body to engage with the hub body.
I certainly hope this was not a recommendation.
Personally I like the DT-style freehub mechanism best. It is very easy to take apart and service, even for people who aren't that experienced with bikemechanics. The engaging mechanism is also very direct, the freehub will not spin much before it engages so there isn't that additional stress to the freehub you get when it engages. (no big 'bang' you sometimes hear coming out of the rear wheel of a mavic wheel)
The three pawl design is pretty straight forward as well, but it takes a bit more work to take it apart and because of the three pawls it engages a tad slower. If you go with the three-pawl design I think the design like the one you pictured with a groove in the pawls that are held by a spring is far better and easier to work with than the old standard with little springs pushing against each pawl. A problem you can get with the three-pawl design that I never had or saw with a DT hub is water that gets inside the free-hub and freezes. I know it isn't supposed to happen but somehow you still see this quite often here in the winter when people ride in the forest and clean their bikes with a powercleaner every weekend.
I think as previously spoken by ProTech, a six-pawl design can easily reduce the "bang" issue with many of today's hubs, also there is increased surface area between the pawls and the ratchet (Same Force, More Area, Decreased Pressure).
One issue that I think has been left undiscussed is equal-spacing between the pawls on the 'standard' design. If they are all spaced out evenly, wouldn't this mean that the relative position of each pawl is identical to the tooth of the ratchet throughout? So if they are all fully disengaged, wouldn't this result in a larger required movement in order to engage? I have a thought on how to improve this, but it is too technical...