Talk Sense Into Me

[BenLeacock™]

you could tac ur king so that it was fixed

I no someone who did it with a pro2, just tac'd it slightly then they could undo it.

I wouldnt consider doing it to my king... but humm you might i suppose

[ManxTrialSpaz]

Thats wrong, well sort of.

most trials freewheels are 18 tooth so if you were to put it on the rear you'd need a 27 tooth front cog in order to get the same ratio. which is annoying on a stock and wont even fit on a mod.

most people who run an 18 on the rear use a 22 tooth on the front.

so 22/18 = 1.22'

1.22 x 48 = 59 so you'd have 59 engagements or near enough for a full rotation.

what you are saying in principle is right but in practice doesn't really work.

Yeh, but considering we're on about freehubs here, which you can get 12t cogs for, he was completely right.

[Walleee]

Also, regarding getting jeans caught, it's really not that hard to ride with your left foot down when freewheeling so your leg is above the chain.

I admit i have afew pairs of jeans with munched right legs, but not many.

[Gavyn.]

all of mine have been on a run up to something I always freewheel left foot down or it'd be alot more than 3 pairs.

its usually because I get home and want to go for a 20-30 min cool off ride and can't be bothered to change into trackies. I guess I've learned my lesson.

and we were talking about freewheel being more responsive on the front than the back.

[Tomm]

look at the top 8 riders in the last uci final what were they running? surely that many top riders can't be wrong?

Yup, and how many of them are sponsored by Chris King, Hope or Profile? And how many are sponsored by companies who make front freewheels (Onza/Tensile, Deng, Monty, Koxx etc)? That proves nothing really.

Firstly. It's not so much the weight difference. It's the weight possitioning. Freewheel set up's are lighter, that is true. But it also shifts the heaviness to the centre of the bike. A heavy backend is a nightmare. I've noticed this since going to rear profile (Worst mistake of my life). I can't actually find any good points of having a rear freehub. It makes your gear feel so much heavier. Makes your bike feel heavier. The only benifit i can fel is, your bike rolls abit smoother.

That actually makes a lot of sense, I've never really heard that opinion before but there's definitely something in that. I don't think it would ever be worth sacrificing the number of engagements for, as dantrials pointed out, but at least that's some argument for FFW.

Anyway, glad to see that he's seen the light

[max-t]

king you absolute idiot.

[Mark W]

Flicky doesn't exist when you've got a profile, because all the engagements coming from the rear end of the bike meaning you've gotta put more of a kick in.

...

Three. The engagement is more responsive on a freewheel. With it been at the front. But i think this once is personal perference.

Not true. Like Edd explained, because (If you're running 18:12, which you should be ) if you've got your 48-click Profile on the back, with your 1:1.5 gear ratio, it'll have the equivalent of 72 clicks per crank-stroke, which would be the same as your Eno FFW (If you're running one of them). So therefore, it'll take the same amount of crank rotation to engage it - pretty much bang on 5°. I know there'll be differences in chain tension and all that shit, but unless you're running your chain looser than a mother-of-five, it'll be pretty much identical.

Thats wrong, well sort of.

most trials freewheels are 18 tooth so if you were to put it on the rear you'd need a 27 tooth front cog in order to get the same ratio. which is annoying on a stock and wont even fit on a mod.

most people who run an 18 on the rear use a 22 tooth on the front.

so 22/18 = 1.22'

1.22 x 48 = 59 so you'd have 59 engagements or near enough for a full rotation.

what you are saying in principle is right but in practice doesn't really work.

He said exactly what you said, but used the mod gear ratio as an example, like I did above? Otherwise, it was exactly the same - having a freehub/rear freewheel means you get the benefits of the advantage provided by your gear ratio to "up" the engagement, so if you ran an Eno on the front and an Eno on the rear, the rear Eno would have more clicks per crank-stroke.

I don't really get why you're using 48 as the multiplying number in your sums there, 'cos I can't think of any trials freewheels that have 48-clicks as standard?

Yup, and how many of them are sponsored by Chris King, Hope or Profile? And how many are sponsored by companies who make front freewheels (Onza/Tensile, Deng, Monty, Koxx etc)? That proves nothing really.

That actually makes a lot of sense, I've never really heard that opinion before but there's definitely something in that. I don't think it would ever be worth sacrificing the number of engagements for, as dantrials pointed out, but at least that's some argument for FFW.

Anyway, glad to see that he's seen the light

Comp riders usually run them because it's easier to carry a crank-arm with a freewheel on it in your toolbag/rucksack than a whole new back wheel, in case you f**k up the pawls/ratchet/whatever mid-comp. That was the reasoning I heard, anyway. The fact they're lighter is probably a bonus, plus the way that you can run smaller teethed freewheels up front than sprockets, thus giving you greater ground clearance.

[Danny Kearns]

Not true. Like Edd explained, because (If you're running 18:12, which you should be ) if you've got your 48-click Profile on the back, with your 1:1.5 gear ratio, it'll have the equivalent of 72 clicks per crank-stroke, which would be the same as your Eno FFW (If you're running one of them). So therefore, it'll take the same amount of crank rotation to engage it - pretty much bang on 5°. I know there'll be differences in chain tension and all that shit, but unless you're running your chain looser than a mother-of-five, it'll be pretty much identical.

My comment was personal prefference by the way Mark.

Danny.

[Mark W]

Whether one thing is actually faster than another isn't "Personal preference" though? Like it might be my "Personal preference" that a Fiat 500 would be faster than an F1 car, but that wouldn't make it the case? A 72 click freewheel, e.g. an Eno, will drive your wheel as fast as a 48 click free hub, e.g. a Profile, if you're running an 18:12 gear ratio. It'll take 5° of crank rotation, if I could be f**ked I'd give you the mm you'd have to move your pedals if you were running 165mm cranks too, but I'm really not in the mood for it. I felt my ACS on the back engaged faster than when I changed to an ACS on the front, and that was largely because it did...

[Danny Kearns]

Whether one thing is actually faster than another isn't "Personal preference" though? Like it might be my "Personal preference" that a Fiat 500 would be faster than an F1 car, but that wouldn't make it the case? A 72 click freewheel, e.g. an Eno, will drive your wheel as fast as a 48 click free hub, e.g. a Profile, if you're running an 18:12 gear ratio. It'll take 5° of crank rotation, if I could be f**ked I'd give you the mm you'd have to move your pedals if you were running 165mm cranks too, but I'm really not in the mood for it. I felt my ACS on the back engaged faster than when I changed to an ACS on the front, and that was largely because it did...

By "Personal Prefference" i meant by feel. Not by all these degree's and shit and rotations. That don't mean shit to me. Im going by what i feel. That a freewheel fee's more responsive (my opinion, weather it's true or not doesn't matter). I just think freehub feel gash.

Danny.

[huge]

Thats wrong, well sort of.

most trials freewheels are 18 tooth so if you were to put it on the rear you'd need a 27 tooth front cog in order to get the same ratio. which is annoying on a stock and wont even fit on a mod.

most people who run an 18 on the rear use a 22 tooth on the front.

so 22/18 = 1.22'

1.22 x 48 = 59 so you'd have 59 engagements or near enough for a full rotation.

what you are saying in principle is right but in practice doesn't really work.

They have used 18:12 gearing as an example as they assumed Dan Kearns was talking about mod bikes. (Your wrong G4vyn )

Freeehubs do feel sluggish to me compared to freewheels but I'd stick with the King if I was you.

Edited March 22, 2008 by huge

[Zordon]

I ran a king for a year. It disappointed me to be honest, because I broke it (needle bearing fall apart totally) and it skipped on me once or twice a day. Not on big moves but it was destructive enough for my mind to be scared of doing pedal ups, for instance. Then I sold it, bought a fixed rear wheel, freewheel, and I still had some spare money left. The freewheel have skipped only once on me since then (10 months).

One disadvantage of freewheel I can see is that I have to run at least 123mm bottom bracket, 'cause the freewheel it's wider than a screw-on sprocket. I remember with sprocket I run a 118mm BB and I still had some room so I could go for a 113mm bb. There's a lot of superlight BBs on the market at these widths

[aener]

Mechanically thats wrong, although you may prefer it.

If you have 48 engagements in a front freewheel there are 48 engagements as you make a full rotation with the cranks

If the same freewheel is on the rear and you run 18:12 gearing then you have (18/12 multiplied by 48) 72 engagements as your cranks make a full turn.

What I'm trying to say is a freewheel at the rear has more engagements than if its was placed at the front, so it is actually less "responsive" on the front.

Good lad.

I'd never though about that before...

How the different teeth on front and rear would effect EP's.

Clever, that.