Theta2 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Hi, I'm just debating whether or not to switch my current 22-18 Middleburn Pro Trials/Echo SL setup to a 16-? Super Pro Trials/Chris King combo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 As a King owner I'd suggest sticking with the SL. They just feel a lot more solid than a King, plus it's cheaper//has more engagements/won't "King skip"/etc. You'll also get less chain wear by having the larger ratio too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirt jumper jake Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 As a King owner I'd suggest sticking with the SL. They just feel a lot more solid than a King, plus it's cheaper//has more engagements/won't "King skip"/etc. You'll also get less chain wear by having the larger ratio too. Kings are nice... but there heavy. i Liked mine alot, but ended up going back FFW for the engagements... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trials Punk Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 ^^^Same^^^ I've got a king on my Leeson 24", and an Echo SL on my Zoo. The Echo SL feels so much more solid than the king, the king seems to have quite a "soft?" engagement to it. Plus, if you ever break anything with the echo you can take it off the hub and just change it for a different make or newer model. If you decide to change the king to something else, it becomes alot more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Vandart Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 As a King owner I'd suggest sticking with the SL. They just feel a lot more solid than a King, plus it's cheaper//has more engagements/won't "King skip"/etc. You'll also get less chain wear by having the larger ratio too. Explain please Mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Well, it'll be less likely to snap as it's having less strain put through it? I seem to remember you've tried this before, but I'm way too tired tonight to bite properly. Sorry Matt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theta2 Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Explain please Mark. I'd hazard a guess that it's the fact that to go round a smaller cog the chain has to go to a steeper angle, therefore putting more wear on the plates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 It isn't because of that, but like I said before, I'm not going to play Matt's game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theta2 Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 It isn't because of that, but like I said before, I'm not going to play Matt's game... Haha you already beat me to it Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukasMcNeal Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 I dunno if this is right but smaller cogs = more rotation so the chain would come on and off the sprocket more? Might be the other way round but who cares im almost asleep... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 King hubs are a lottery. Mine is probably around 8 years old, I've had it for 5 and it skips about once a year? Other fellow riders have had endless problems with theirs. On that basis I'd stick with the SL. Unless you've sourced a reliable King. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theta2 Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Ok, I think I'll stick to the SL, Thanks guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Vandart Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Well, it'll be less likely to snap as it's having less strain put through it? I seem to remember you've tried this before, but I'm way too tired tonight to bite properly. Sorry Matt. Not on a wind up, I am genuinely asking. Is it because of the fact that less links are in contact with the teeth whilst force is applied do you think? Or as there are less links they have to share the use more? As in, for a given distance of linear travel, they will have come into contact with the teeth many more times? These are the only things I can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris4stars Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 surely its about sharing the load over time? larger cogs/sprockets = longer chain as the length of the section of chain (under tension during pedaling - the top bit) doesnt really change much when swapping ratios, if you have a longer chain each link will spend less time in that "under force" section....each link has more time off whilst traveling round the rest of the system under less tension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forteh Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 Im not sure that smaller sprockets cause significantly more chain wear, there is more load going through the chain though because of the increased moment acting through the cranks - same length lever with decreased force radius = more load on chain. Because the load acting on the sprocket is spread over fewer teeth then theoretically the chain roller wear will be increased slightly, however the difference in load bearing teeth on the typical trials gear ratios is only 1-2 between the two extremes (assuming 1/2 sprocket chain wrap front and rear). To the best of my knowledge, most chain failures in trials are due to plates/pins splitting from overloading rather than rollers wearing out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Dunstan Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 I've had a King before, and now use an SL. The only thing I miss about my King is the Purr. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Gibbs Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 This might sound silly but is it true that you get a slightly faster pick up running a freewheel on the rear than you do running it on the front? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forteh Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 This might sound silly but is it true that you get a slightly faster pick up running a freewheel on the rear than you do running it on the front? You get higher engagement because of the gear ratio, typically 1.2:1 for stock so a 108 click will give the equivalent of 129.6 click when mounted on the rear axle. A 72 engagement king hub at 1.2:1 is the equivalent of an 86.4 click freewheel on the cranks Personally I like kings, but then I have a king that has never skipped in the 6 years Ive had it. If it were to fail catastrophically I would probably go for ffw though for the better weight distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.