Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Shimano 36T Freehub experience

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
#21 ·
Shimano freehubs have been absolute crap for low cadence, high torque climbing forever. They're an xc hub, and they just don't stand up to the kind of torque that is applied when, for instance, you're climbing up either side of Moore Fun (hope you didn't miss that one).

On the other hand, they can last many, many years if your ride them on flowing xc trails.

I love Shimano angular contact bearing hubs, and wish they would throw down and build a freehub mech that equals Kings, etc. They certainly have the engineering ability to do so if they made it a priority.
 
#22 ·
I'm getting confused here.
Isn't the torque applied to the hub the same as the torque you need to move the Wheel?
Regardless of the cog size, the torque is a function of the wheel size, weight of the rider+bike, slope grade and speed (to a certain extent).
So, if you're climbing a certain slope on a certain bike with a 32 T cog, when you're climbing it at the same speed on the same bike with a 36T, you're either spinning at the same rpm if you also have a larger chainring or faster if you kept your same ring but the torque at the wheel, hence at the hub is the same, isn't it ?

Now, if you take advantage of the 36T to climb steeper hills, then the torque is obviously higher but so would it with a 32T as well ?

I think these hubs were poorly designed in the first place.
 
#24 ·
The size of the wheel has absolutely nothing to do with it. You can remove the hub from the wheel and clamp it in a vice. Put a chain whip onto the cassette and turn it. The hub will likely withstand the torque you can apply. Now put an extension bar onto the chain whip and you are likely able to produce enough torque to destroy the freehub.

The real life equivalent is the situation when you are riding up a very steep incline in your lowest gear and have almost stopped. You get up out of the saddle and apply as much force as you can onto the cassette. (Even using your whole body against your handlebar to force the pedals down. A lot more than just your weight.) The wheel/hub is stationary (almost) so the radius of the wheel has no bearing on the ability of the freehub to survive. With the added leaverage of a 36T cog you are applying more torque to the freehub and could destroy it.

Ronnie.
 
Save
Like Like
#25 ·
This thread is fun:)

Side note: Has anyone had issues with the Hope Pro ll rear hub shredding or is it considered a "36t compatible" hub? I want 36t...as soon as they come out with a respectable weight version. 2011 XT maybe???
 
#26 ·
Wheel size should be considered in this debate as well. The tire is further from the hub, allowing greater leverage to be applied. This is the exact reason that many do not run 160mm brake rotors, it is harder to overcome the leverage from the larger wheel to slow you down.
 
#27 ·
Jim311 said:
Wheel size should be considered in this debate as well. The tire is further from the hub, allowing greater leverage to be applied. This is the exact reason that many do not run 160mm brake rotors, it is harder to overcome the leverage from the larger wheel to slow you down.
Click to expand...
The only reason wheel size is even in this debate is that 29" wheels are becoming popular. That resulted in the likes of Shimano even making a 36T cassette. It is completely conceivable that a 36T cassette could and will be fitted onto a 26" wheel. The same rider would produce the same torque on the freehub, irrespective of the wheel size. Although he may be on a steeper incline with a 26" than a 29" as the final ratio is slightly lower. The ability of the freehub to survive maximum torque does not change.

Ronnie.
 
Save
Like Like
#28 ·
Jim311 said:
Wheel size should be considered in this debate as well. The tire is further from the hub, allowing greater leverage to be applied. This is the exact reason that many do not run 160mm brake rotors, it is harder to overcome the leverage from the larger wheel to slow you down.
Click to expand...
We're only concerned about the amount of torque going from the cranks to the freehub. Since the freehub is the failing component, anything that comes after it in the drivetrain isn't relevant.

(i.e. it's true that you *need* more torque to drive bigger wheels at the same linear speed, but the size of the wheels - taken on their own - doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be able to supply that extra torque)
 
#29 ·
NoahColorado said:
The hubs in question are actually 529s ( I thought they were 495s but I just checked) - and a special version of it, at that. "Torque rated for 36t applications" is what it says on on the hub shell.
Click to expand...
Sounds like this is a one off problem that is only relevant to this one hub seems like Shimano may have screwed up on this one.

bigdrunk said:
Related question for you all: How much difference is there between a 20t front ring and 36t rear cassette? Does either option get you the same/similar result?
Click to expand...
For me it's not one or the other but both, I would like to see a good quality 36 tooth cassette current set up front is 20/32/44 but I will likely check into getting a 30/36-8. I find that the 20x36 combination is very helpful on sustained but rideable climbs.
 
#30 ·
to the op,

If your going to run 1x10 i assume you'll be running a XX cassette. For that cassette i'd get the alum freehub body since there aren't individual "cogs" to dig into the free hub body.
 
Discussion starter · #31 ·
Vortechcoupe said:
to the op,

If your going to run 1x10 i assume you'll be running a XX cassette. For that cassette i'd get the alum freehub body since there aren't individual "cogs" to dig into the free hub body.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely not going to use the XX cassette as I am a "tried and true" rapid rise user which means I have to stay with the big S. However, I'm very curious about the Action Tec cogs. AZ Tripper mentioned that his friend was using a 36 tooth cog from Action Tec. I'm going to call them tomorrow to see what they offer. I noticed they offer individual cogs as well.

I'd love to go over to XX or even XO or X9 but I just can't go back to backwards shifting :)) I love rapid rise shifting. Unfortunately, I think Rapid Rise is going the way of the Dodo.
 
Discussion starter · #32 ·
NoahColorado said:
Hope to see you again in Fruita! Cheers :)
Click to expand...
We've been going out to Fruita for 5 years now. We wouldn't miss it for anything. Too bad about the weather and turn out this year. Oh well, I was able to get the pick of the Demos this year. Nothing like Demo'ing a Tallboy with XX for 24 hours!

Thanks for taking care my friends. They weren't too bummed. It gave use a reason to go back to town for a beer or two. We appreciate the quality and professional service you guys provide at Over the Edge. Cheers!
 
#33 ·
DFYFZX said:
This thread is fun:)

Side note: Has anyone had issues with the Hope Pro ll rear hub shredding or is it considered a "36t compatible" hub? I want 36t...as soon as they come out with a respectable weight version. 2011 XT maybe???
Click to expand...
I have the same question, I want to order the 36t cassette but not sure if the hope pro will hold it ???
anyone?
 
#37 ·
Not involved in the OP's incident, but what I have seen is mostly a failure of the new Shimano freehubs at the pawl/ratchet level with a higher rate of issues than the older Shimano hubs exhibited. It's an easy fix, but seems completely unnecessary as many other hub makers are producing alternatives that hold up better to high torque situations.
 
#38 ·
Ronnie said:
No sir it is you... (well I won't say it) but it is you that does not know what you are talking about.

The cassette acts as a lever. The chain applies a turning force at the outer edge of the cog. The wheel and therefore the freehub could just as easily be turned by say a rod or a wrench where the chain is applying the force. What is a bigger turning moment or torque? A pound foot or a pound inch? Obviously the force applied with the longer lever. The 36T cog with it's bigger radius is applying greater torque to the freehub than a smaller, say 32T cog when the same force is applied to the chain by the riders pedaling force.

Ronnie.
Click to expand...
DOH! I actually realized the serious error in my logic about 30 seconds after I hit "submit". Unfortunately (for me), I couldn't figure out how to delete the post. So yes, I was an idiot.
 
#39 ·
Lord Humongous said:
Not involved in the OP's incident, but what I have seen is mostly a failure of the new Shimano freehubs at the pawl/ratchet level with a higher rate of issues than the older Shimano hubs exhibited. It's an easy fix, but seems completely unnecessary as many other hub makers are producing alternatives that hold up better to high torque situations.
Click to expand...
I found the older Shimano XT hubs to be seriously unreliable. Freehubs continuously failed.
 
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
About this Discussion
62 Replies
34 Participants
Last post:
Ronnie
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion