Alethes Uni Frames


Thus far Ryan and Jeff have yet to destroy the frames that they were testing for me. Ryan’s frame suffered a minor dent after missing a pretty huge drop and hitting a square edge of something.

The production frames will vary from the prototypes slightly, having a bit thicker sheet metal in the legs (to prevent denting form extreme circumstances) and a bit thinner walled seat tube (still 27.2 ID). These changes will add weight in the legs, but lower it in the seat tube. I think the differences should even each other out, so the frame should still be around one and a quarter pounds.

I am in the proccess of producing the 24 and 20 inch frames and will very soon be making a 36 inch frame to fit a coker tire and a wider coker hub.

After discussing margins and whatnot with John at, I have decided that it would be in my (and the consumers) best interest to sell these frames direct.

I have settled on a price of $250 US for the trials frame and $275 US for the 24 inch frame with flush brake bosses. this is for a standard frame with black powdercoat. Some options may raise or lower tha price slightly, but those will be the base prices.

I should have pictures up very soon of the frame and of my built up trials uni.

Also, I have a close friend working long nights developing a website for me to showcase the products and offer more detailed info and pictures.

My new AIM screen name is AlethesCycling, feel free to IM me with any questions or comments.

Re: Alethes Uni Frames

Oh nice! I like the idea of the Coker frame to fit the wide hub. Fantastic.

Curious, did you ever get my e-mail?

Re: Alethes Uni Frames

Cool. (thanks for highlighting this, John!)

I have specs to give you for the wider hub so that the wide hub frame makers can be consistent. This benefits the consumer, the wheel and hub makers, and the frame makers.

No, I don’t think i’ve recieved any email from you other than that pm a while back. give it another shot, the email in my sig line is correct.

If you could email me those specs, that would be fantastic. I was just planning on buying a few of the common hubs and trying to hook up a design that could accomodate them all using spacers. I’m all about consistency and standards within an industry, it just makes everything easier on everyone.

Re: Alethes Uni Frames

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:10:29 -0600, SEMPER_UNI
<> wrote:

>the email in my sig line is correct.

>Michael S. Pritchett

I notice that you misspell your name in your email address.
gerblefranklin may have missed that.

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict

I have a feeling you might need two points of contact with the ground for such a thing to work? Or at least training wheels on the front and rear. - John Foss commenting on a picture of a one-wheeled vehicle he saw on RSU.

I resent the e-mail as a PM and in e-mail. Hope you get at least one of them.

Great attitude! I’ve sent you the information via email.

Hey Michael,

Any word yet on the weight of the 24" frame and how it will compare in weight to the Wilder? I’m still curious how a steel frame could be close to the same weight as an aluminum one.

Also any idea when the frame will be tested and by whom?



Steel? who said anything about steel? All aluminum over here, unless your’e talking about the old thread comparing the kh frame with the wilder…

As of now I don’t have an exact to-the-ounce figure, the design will be changing ever so slightly as noted above…

The cad model for the new design says 1 pound 4.6 ounces, but it was about a half on ounce low on the last version. so probably around a pound and five ounces.

Uturn i got you email, thank you. Is that a standard 99-r12 bearing you noted, 12mm by 40mm… the axels on those aren’t as big in diameter as the profile axles are they?

Bevan, go the email. i’ll reply right after i post this…

Oh, Ok. Sorry bout that. Will this frame fit the Muniac hub?

As you probably know, Scott designed the Drastic hub to fit the Wilder frame and the Wilder spacing is wider than any of the current production uni’s out there.
I’ve got a Muniac hub here waiting for a frame. The Wilder didn’t appeal to me for a few reasons so I’m having Rick Hunter build me a frame with a spacing wide enough to accomodate the bearing spacing (4.25") of the Muniac hub. I should have it very soon.
As far as standard and consistent sizing among builders, it’s a great idea and the Muniac (Scott) has talked about the importance of this but it seems he believed the standard should be his size.
If for some reason the Muniac hub doesn’t work out for me, it’s not a problem as my Profile hub will fit by adjusting the washers. So for me this is good. But, if Semper builds his frame to this standard, it seems the hub selection will be limited to the Profile and Muniac only.

  • Frank

I was going to build a wheel with the Muniac hub and have somebody jump on it and try to break it, but this is what I found:

  1. You have to use square taper cranks. This is not bad, except that Kooka went out of business and I haven’t yet found any replacements.

  2. If you find some good cranks, you have to have them machined by Muniac at extra charge of $50 (except for the first set).

  3. The cranks have to be mounted before you build the wheel, because you have to use a 20-ton press and the wheel won’t fit into the press.

  4. You can’t use an industry-standard wheel truing stand because the cranks are already on the wheel.

  5. Everytime you need to a) change the cranks, or b) replace the cranks, you have to tear down the wheel because of the need to use the press, then rebuild it after replacing the cranks.

  6. If you want to replace the cranks, you also have to have the new ones machined by muniac.

I never even got to frame compatibility.

I thought that muniac hub was a particularly dumb idea, basically the idea was that instead of making a hub that fits one of the standards that already exist, make a hub for which no cranks are available at all. That’s even worse than the splined hubs with only two crank lengths available.

It seems particularly silly now, when splined cranksets are that bit lighter with the new onza one and there’s the square taper hub with internal threading available for less agressive riders.

And now there’s all this stuff about needing heavy machinery to fit cranks on, how stupid is that.



Yeah, there are alot of exclusive issues with the Muniac hub but after the axle in one of my Profiles loosened up, I wanted to at least try an alternative. I’m still pretty much a Profile guy, (they fixed it no charge) but I had a set of Kookas and the set up was free so I figured I’d give it a try.
I build the wheels myself and I’ll finish truing it up in the frame.
I won’t be able to give a report until I get the frame.
I was going to order a 24" Hunter anyway as my Hunter’s are 26" and 36". As I mentioned, it won’t hurt either way 'cause the Profile will still work.
It’s too bad there are so many conditions to buy into with the Muniac hub because it would probably be a good alternative choice. As it is, all things considered, I think most folks will do just what you did and choose something without so many limitations.
Scott has narrowed the potential list of riders opting for the Drastic Light Foot hub.
I just wanted to try it.

  • Frank

That’s a good reason!

Ok, I follow all your statements about compatibility and trying various things and it all makes sense, but…

My goal is to build as light and strong a 24" trials uni as possible with available parts. The cost of currently available parts is not a major factor - they are all custom jobs made/sold in small quanitities and are all relatively pricey. I have a nice Vortex which keeps ticking. I just want to play around with a light/strong 24" urban trials uni at some point.

The main question, as you guys have highlighted, will obviously be how the hub/frame will work together. The rest of the decisions are relatively easy (tire, rim, seat etc…)

Here are my thoughts…

  1. I want a light, strong, proven hub. The muniac hub is .86 lbs and has been thoroughly tested. Is there another hub that can compete with this? Again, all I care about it weight, strength and reliability. I’m not concerned with compatibility. I just want the end result. And I too, “just want to try it.” Last I checked, Kookas could still be obtained. This may not be true anymore, in which case I will need to find other cranks.

Up to now my thought has been that the Profile has many good qualities except it is LOUD and HEAVY (around 1.5 lbs i think?). Scott’s hub is silent and light.

Does anybody know the weights of other common hubs like the KH and Onza? Are they in the .86 lb “ballpark?” Are they reliable?

  1. Light, strong, proven frame. If it turns out that Michael’s frame withstands rigourous testing over time, then I would consider it, if it can take a strong/light hub. If it cannot, then I will look toward the muniac hub/frame combo. Don’t forget that Ryan and Jeff have only tested the 20" frame, if I understood correctly. I’d be happy to test the 24" though :slight_smile:

You see, if I can shave approximately 0.6 lb off the hub and another chunk of weight off the frame, then my mission is accomplished and I’ve got a damn light Muni. Choosing the remaining parts will be relatively easy. Thoughts?

Only Michael will be able to tell you if he’s willing to build one (or more) frame(s) to accept the Muniac hub. I beleive Michael’s goals are much like yours, to build a very light but strong frame.
I have high hopes for the Drastic hub but it seems you and I are in the minority here.

  • Frank

I respect your comments, Joe. Here are some thoughts, not necessarily in any order.

Lightness is important, but after seeing the guys at NAUCC clean picnic tables and stairs with my Coker I believe that technique is 95% of the battle.

I can “easily” shave 10 lbs off my body and gain more benefit. I know that’s not true for you! :smiley:

If you have problems with the Kookas loosening up the way the NZ guys do, you have to rebuild the wheel. This may not happen with the machine press-on, though I doubt it.

Perhaps the Muniac hub will prove to be really great and someone will start manufacturing cranks with the modified taper, but otherwise the pool of available Kookas will run out quickly. Perhaps has more than the 12 sets they told me they had almost 2 years ago.

It just doesn’t seem like an approach that has a future. I know about all of Scott’s complaints about the lack of industry compatibility (now offline), and yet this solution appears totally non-compatible, and also nearly unmaintainable. A splined approach seems ridiculously reasonable given the tremendous torque involved with trials. It just makes sense.

Weight is only meaningful when you take the hub and cranks as a unit. The Profile and KH sets seem to be able to take a lot of force. However, it might be helpful if Muniac would recommend a brand or two of cranks suitable for his hub, and post it on the website, and perhaps a reliable website link or two for where to buy them.

Don’t forget that every set of Muniac-compatible cranks after the first set has a $50 surcharge, plus postage two ways, for machining, not to mention the wheel rebuild and tear down costs.

I think Scott’s efforts to lighten the hub and maintain strength are really excellent. I wish I had the skills he does. I think that building a splined hub with a standardized spline pattern would have better served him and his customers both, and he could still have made the weight savings he did.

The top trials unicyclists nearly always do extreme vertical things seat-in-front. To reduce weight in the frame should be easy: minimize the saddle, get rid of one arm, drill holes ala Steve Howard’s frames, use plastic. There’s plenty of room for investment and risk there. This is not quite so true for MUni, but it is still true.


when do you plan on having these frames ready for sales??