Benefit Of A Front Freewheel?

[Mark W]

Hi

My concern with the ffw is the trend to go for smaller cogs as this will place more tension on the chain, leading to more stretch and failure.

As a side note, if I remember correctly, at one point in the distant past someone came out with a free wheel that used rollers, not ratchets. This meant that there were no clicks and instant engagement. I think I remember one of the Martins testing them for MBUK and stating that it was quite weird having an instant drive. Are these still made by anyone.

Tim

I don't remember of a freewheel using that system, but there have been quite a few hubs that utilise a sort of roller bearing clutch type setup. They're not all that great for trials use though, unfortunately.

Regarding the sprocket sizes, it does place more stress on chains but a good chain should still work fairly well. Z610HX and Z510HX chains are pretty good at resisting stretching so I'd usually recommend them over the Kool (either 710 or 810) style chains. Always a good idea to replace your chain regularly in any case, so it shouldn't be an issue...

Matt - any time you move your cranks to preload, you'll feel the effects of differing amount of engagement points. It'll vary from move to move, but it is noticeable. I went from an SL freewheel to a Pro 2 T (so from 108 to about 65 clicks), and you can tell. Can definitely get used to it, but there is a difference.

It's also easier to make a setup lighter with a FFW setup rather than a conventional rear freehub type setup too, and even with a freewheel on the rear. It's not so much about where the weight is, but there is less of it there. Weight on rotational parts also has more of an effect, so even though it's only in the centre of the wheel there'll still be a bit of a difference there. I wouldn't say there were specific moves that you benefit from not having weight further away from the centre of your bike, but I'd imagine most 'to front' moves would benefit from not having more weight towards the rear of your bike.

[forteh]

It's also easier to make a setup lighter with a FFW setup rather than a conventional rear freehub type setup too, and even with a freewheel on the rear. It's not so much about where the weight is, but there is less of it there.

Last time I looked a standard king with burns, a lightweight bash (18t tnn) is lighter than a freewheel setup.

Granted its only 30g but hey

[AdamR28]

Is that taking into account the heavier chain you need for the TNN setup?

[forteh]

Is that taking into account the heavier chain you need for the TNN setup?

Pfft, silly 1/8" chains

[Mark W]

Last time I looked a standard king with burns, a lightweight bash (18t tnn) is lighter than a freewheel setup.

Granted its only 30g but hey

Fair bit more pricey than an equivalent weight FFW setup?

[forteh]

Fair bit more pricey than an equivalent weight FFW setup?

Yeah if you buy new, Ive seen kings go for 60 quid on here though

After all that, you still have more weight on the rear axle, less rotating mass though because youre not having to move the chain all the time. Swings and roundabouts

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

So the plane takes off?

[Matt Vandart]

LOL.

Thanks for clearing that up for I

[liam n]

i keep reading this post title and thinking Bnefit of a front WHEEL and its annoying

[Tomm]

As a side note, if I remember correctly, at one point in the distant past someone came out with a free wheel that used rollers, not ratchets. This meant that there were no clicks and instant engagement. I think I remember one of the Martins testing them for MBUK and stating that it was quite weird having an instant drive. Are these still made by anyone.

Do you mean the RB Designs one? I don't think you can still get them, but thankfully the website doesn't seem to have changed since 2003 http://www.rbdesign.sk/en/en_index.htm (there's even a nice animation of how the hub works). They weren't very good though. Some people used to use Shimano clutch hubs, but they were apparently wank too. I never used one but people complained that although they were more-or-less instant engagement, it was a weird "spongey" feel. And they used to last a few months at most.

All this talk about engagements is a bit irrelevant really. When on the backwheel, most good riders will pre-tension the pedals/chain/hub so they're always "engaged" ready for the power move. The main advantage is if you have a quick-engagement you can get the pedals to exactly the right position. But whether you'll notice the difference between 2.7 and 3.3 degrees in rotation, I doubt it!

[Mark W]

Doing tech shit on natural it's pretty apparent. I had to go from an SL 108 to a Tensile 60 (may have been a TR...), and trying to get your pedals cocked back perfectly to get the right sort of drive was pretty tricky, always felt like it was in the 'wrong' place...

[Krisboats]

I noticed that when going to static switch an obstacle. I do it to my wrong side so the effect is more apparent but i find the engagement point of my hope is usually with the pedal near enough on the object or too high for comfort. Normally i just reposition so its not a problem but i'd imagine a better rider wouldn't want the loss of time in a hard section.

[Matt Vandart]

All this talk about engagements is a bit irrelevant really. When on the backwheel, most good riders will pre-tension the pedals/chain/hub so they're always "engaged" ready for the power move. The main advantage is if you have a quick-engagement you can get the pedals to exactly the right position. But whether you'll notice the difference between 2.7 and 3.3 degrees in rotation, I doubt it!

Thats what I was getting at before, or trying too anyway