I think you're misunderstanding that system. Yes, a single pawl engages first but before it receives too much torque, a second, third, and forth pawl engage so that no one pawl ever receives too much load. It's actually an extremely strong design.
There's lots of them out there at this point, if it was problematic it would be all over the internet.
Same here... I have multiple sets of ~2008-ish DT 240s and Chris King hubs that have been trouble free with minor cleaning and re-greasing US ng no special tools.I know nothing of the I9s, but I will say that my 240s are now at 11 years and 30,000km, a lot of it in winter slush.
With just some grease every year or two.
No other wheelset I've had has lasted that long.... they are approaching mechanical immortality.
(knock on wood)
You don't understand.I do believe I understand the system. I’m not saying it’s junk or not reliable but point out that the DT system would likely be considered superior from a mechanical engineering point of view.
As far as engagement goes, does 1 pawl have much more stress than the others or does the system flex easily and the other pawls engage rather quickly? Option 1 will likely lead to premature wear or damage. Option 2 means your not really getting 690 points of engagement. So at .52 degrees engagement per pawl how many pawls do you need engaged to support your max torque? 2,3,4? Each additional pawl means you effectively lost another half degree of engagement. If it’s 4 then the marketing doesn’t look nearly as good vs DT and your still working with a hub with uneven loads however minor that may be. Both systems may be overkill in strength for mtbing but I would not consider them equal.
What I didn't mention is that I've somehow had the same set of rims (Stans 26er) on them the whole time. I replaced a bunch of rear spokes about five years ago but that's it.Ha, love the anti-jinx at the end!
I would go DT without giving it a second thought. and not because of the weight advantage. Difference in engagement is fairly irrelevant, but if you want DT has the option of a 54 points rachet. Want bling? Get a pair of DT XMC 1200 ... or go for the less expensive XMC 1501. My 2015 XMC have thousands of miles on them and still going as strong as day one ...Just wondering how many would choose the DT's because of the 90g weight difference. I'm not a full on weight weenie and not racing but am trying to lighten up my V4 Ripley a bit. I'm building a wheel set and current is ~1900grams and I had it in my mind I want to get to the 1500 gram range. If I build with Hydras that i want for the bling colour and unique sound it will be 1650g and the 240's will get me more the desired weight of mid 1500grams. If i post in any other forum I'm sure ppl will just say you will never feel the 90 grams so just get the hydras but wondering what ppl say here. Thanks!
Or because DT is simply a better, more durable hub.I would go DT without giving it a second thought. and not because of the weight advantage. Difference in engagement is fairly irrelevant, but if you want DT has the option of a 54 points rachet. Want bling? Get a pair of DT XMC 1200 ... or go for the less expensive XMC 1501. My 2015 XMC have thousands of miles on them and still going as strong as day one ...
Yes, that is what I meant (a bit cryptically) when I said to go for DT "not because of the weight advantage"! (although it is nice bonus.)Or because DT is simply a better, more durable hub.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you have any idea what rim this is? 1265g with a 30mm id rim seems crazy light.Here’s the difference of the two hub sets. Rims and spokes(berd) are the same. The I9’s have tape and valves, which is why they are a little heavier than the 90 g’s. Btw, this shows that you can get a set of wheels in the 1300’s with I9’s. It’s not cheap.... But these wheels are pretty great. If I remember correctly these rims are 30mm Inner. But I'd have to measure to make sure. Btw, it should also be pointed out that the new 240's are a decent amount lighter than the old ones shown here. View attachment 1912704 View attachment 1912705 View attachment 1912706