Excerpted from the pdf, “The bicycle wheel”:
Sorry, when I started to use that 19 years 11 months and 2 weeks, not with that in mind. You start spewing too much bullcrap per sentence, and I have better ways to spend my time, than to correct your posts that start with “I have no idea”.
I’m just preparing my other wheel to practise tomorrow, this time a ti hub, well-fitting “natural” ti spokes, and even ti nipples. The weakest part now is the threading.
While disassembling it became even more clear the fatalities are exactly how Marco and Olaf predicted it independantly of eachother:
Before the reinforced came out Marco told he disliked the small space between the eyes, which are like “mail-stamps”. Actually on mine’s “good” side at least another 2 were cut there also. That is what broke first; and so at least 10x before one outer edge broke!!!
Looking at the new reinforced model that “problem” is addressed twice; either the diameter is bigger or the holes are smaller, and the “outer edge” space (above the eye) looks bigger to.
Olaf predicted the other part; Ergal is not good at holding permanent tention forever. He predicted that in my setup it would break after 3 years. I expected it earlier.
For that reason you can’t have 20 years (or lifetime?) guaranty as my previous heat-treated CroMo freestyle square hubs use to have.
Yury Shavro & Diana Aleschenko used cross 2 when they won gold at Cirque du Demain. I account that level far beyond any of the Japanese freestyle riders, of which none ever came to that same level. So if you truly wish to make emotional choises, simply go for the lacing method of your role-model and your unicycle will make you instantly as good as them, right?
Bytheway at the mentioned competition I saw at least two 48s radial wheels used by two female top riders of team Japan. I guess they must be losers, right?
Yes, indeed, thank you.
Last weekend me and a friend were invited by nobody less than Joseph Bouglione to come to Napoleon’s Cirque du Hiver in Paris, I met a previous French acrobatic partner, and this disciplined Czech juggler. Her cousin was the one who teached me the basics of unicycling. Her uncle was part of an acrobatic unicycle troupe. He once broke a chain, felt from his tall unicycle, got a pedal in his spinal cord, and later ended in a wheelchair. The most fatal unicycle accident I know of. Meeting her last week reminded me that again. So anyway I’m not too keen on experimenting while having other peoples health at risk. This was tolerable, came on the right moment, build my confidence and is a good experience to take along.
No errors = nothing learned. And to find limits you have to go over them.
One lesson learned for the future:
when you think you broke a spoke, but can’t discover any, then look twice at both flanges!
Ergal is defiantly not a material that is good for a long time. It is extremely strong but like all aluminum over time it will eventually have failure. Marco and Olaf have told me repeated times this same thing. Mad4one isnt trying to make parts for every rider out there but for riders that are wanting high end parts that are not available anywhere else. Sadly the best way to test parts are to give them to people and see how they hold up in the long run. I have heard about failures of mad4one parts but they are ALL RECORDED and improved upon. I will agree with Julia and others that the lacing pattern was maybe not the best idea but it was good you did this. There is now more data about how the hub does with different lacing patterns and hopefully the issue will be fixed so future riders can lace their hubs and rims however they want.
That is a very chilling story to hear about your friend on the giraffe. One of the worst accidents I have heard to come from unicycling 
I would be very interested to hear how the Ti spokes work for you. I have broken only one spoke in my entire riding career and have been thinking about making such an investment.
Though that could be an extremely long time - it all depends how much stress you put it under (I’m using stress in its technical sense there - it’s a term expressing the force per unit area of a material, and is what material strength is expressed in terms of). Plenty of aluminium parts in use which see low stress levels and have very long lifetimes. For example almost all high end bicycle hubs are made from aluminium, and they typically survive for decades - in fact I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a bicycle hub failing due to fatigue when used as designed. So given the forces on a unicycle hub aren’t orders of magnitude different, it seems there is no reason why it shouldn’t be possible to design one of those in aluminium which never has a failure of a spoke flange - provided that it is used as designed, which means no radial or 1x lacing unless the hub is specifically designed for that (bicycle hubs typically specify if they are certified for radial lacing, and those hubs have more metal in their flanges - I’ve seen failures of radially laced bicycle hubs which were not designed to be used like that). Of course where a unicycle hub does differ is that it also has a crank spindle, and it is this where it seems it is not possible to keep the stress levels low enough using a standard crank interface.
Before anybody pulls the “unicycles are different” card again, most unicycle cranks are aluminium (I’m assuming including those used by the elite riders posting on this thread, some of whom put extremely high levels of stress on their components), and whilst there are some failures of those, it’s not a frequent occurrence.
Oh, and something I meant to post earlier:
Leo, I am not saying that a 3 cross pattern is superior to radial lacing. I am just noting that freestyle riders can be successful with a wide range of spoke configurations, and therefore I don’t believe that it was necessary for you to use a 1 cross lacing pattern on this hub.
I will reiterate what I said in an earlier post; your actions are needlessly malicious. As you yourself have stated many times, you KNEW without a doubt that using a Mad4One hub in this way would cause a breakage due to the small flange diameter. Yet, you did it anyway, and then proceeded to advertise it as a “Mad4One failure.” The only reason I can imagine you would do this is to convince others that Mad4One hubs are not high quality or durable, while in fact you were just using the hub improperly in a way it was not designed to be used. Looking at this sequence of events make it clear that you are trying to undermine the hard work of Olaf, Marco, and everyone involved with Mad4One.
I will leave the engineering discussion to aracer, adelman, and those more knowledgeable than myself on the Exceed hub thread, but you have not yet presented an argument addressing why you needed to use this lacing pattern. When I stated “I have no idea…” I was hoping that you would explain why, since I can obviously not read your mind, but your response was as condescending and uninformative as usual.
Does anyone know if the 100mm M41 aluminum hub takes 14g (2.0) spokes? The website says the spoke “hole” diameter is “2,9”, with that “comma”, so I’m not sure of the size.
In Europe I think commas and periods are opposite (at least in numbers) from the US, so I believe that would be 2.9. So it should work.
Hmm, well that must not correspond to the actual spoke gauge, but just the hole diameter in the flange. 2.0mm is 14g, so a 2.9, which I can’t find, would be off-the-scale huge! I’m assuming it’s normal for the spoke hole to be of a larger diameter than the spoke, but .9 larger seems like a pretty big difference! The older 13g spoke size Kris used to use was 2.2 I believe. So I’m thinking each successive gauge goes up by .2 as in this list quoted from a mountain bike forum:
[I]The common gauges correspond to spoke wire thicknesses thus:
14g = 2.0mm
15g = 1.8mm
16g = 1.6mm
17 g = 1.4mm (?) [/I]
Hmm I haven’t looked at the numbers but when replacing spokes and stuff I haven’t noticed that the spoke hole is noticeably too large. I think you’ll be alright, I’m guessing that it may be a typo or something because I doubt that Mad4One would deviate from whatever the industry standard is in terms of the spoke hole sizes.
Worth another thread. After my 4th $et and mixed results I don’t think it’s the best. Problem simply remains the bending.
Sorry, disagree here. That the material is not able to hold the force does mean the tention is too high.
The material was a weight-consession. Or would you disagree on that?
Also AFAIK I’m not a machine.
No you said: “That was NOT a standard or well-thought-out use of any hub.”
Funny, that’s exactly “3x” not true.
Cross 4 would put conflicting forces on what turns out exactly to be the weak spot. I’m not at all convinced this is going to improve it for us.
Your imagination is too binair (as in 0 or 1).
Get some healthy reality:
If the quality was perfect, then no improvement was needed.
And if it was durable, they would come with 20 years guarantee in stead of 3.
But look from the other side;
after 18 years of no problems, on which brand did I choose to spend my own earned money, after throwing away two other ISIS hubs (without using them) …?
Or tell me, what other ISIS hub is a better option for me?
I rather see me as unsponsered investor to the knowlegde base, of which others can benefit, and emphasizing their improvements on the reinforced hub were exactly right, and the mysterious Facebook fineprint probably to!
The opposite is closer to reality. And the pictures you publish remind me of that. Sorry, but again you have no idea what you’re saying.
Well, hey, you talk in statements, I never noticed questionmarks, or grammerwise a clear question.
Why should I be motivated to present you my argument of my reality that spoils your reality even more?
In the meantime I could talk to very successful bike part designers, and come up with with an innovative solution.
I think I figured it out; the larger diameter holes in the flange are so the spoke heads will fit in nice and flush. If the holes were only slightly larger than the actual spoke diameter, the heads would stick out! The heads taper down like a cone, and that’s apparently the part that nestles inside and against the spoke hole.
Except you’re taking my quote out of context. My first statement was in regard to competition; clearly there have been many successful freestyle riders who have used a wide range of spoke patterns. Riders with 3-cross lacing do no better or worse than riders with radial lacing, as far as I can tell. The quote you used was in regard to the extreme forces radial/1 cross lacing puts on the equipment. From that perspective, 3-cross wheel lacing is much superior to radial lacing. You do realize that lacing a wheel radially puts literally an infinite amount of force on the hub, right? Until it deforms? My statements were completely consistent with each other in context.
My apologies, I don’t have experience with 4 cross. I was just going off of the Exceed thread. But 3 cross certainly would improve it.
In terms of your freestyle hub, you’re correct. There is nothing stopping you from demolishing it with a hacksaw, running it over with a truck, or lacing it 1-cross, all things guaranteed to break it, and then posting Mad4one failure everywhere. It’s mean-spirited, but no one’s stopping you.
What I have a bigger problem with is your public criticism of the 6 pin hub that was given to you to test. When you are given parts, the producer thinks you can help improve it and find flaws. You are supposed to ride it hard to find any weaknesses. However, you are finding flaws so that the manufacturer can improve it, not so that you can brag about it on an internet forum. In my opinion it was very unprofessional for you to advertise the problems in a prototype product that was given to for the sole purpose of you finding problems in it before it went to market. I have also tested mad4one products. I have broken some of them. I will say that now, because they have since been redesigned stronger and better than before, and I have had 0 problems with them since then. The hub was given to you to test, and give feedback directly to the designers. NOT for you to come on here to make disparaging remarks about it, while subtly bragging about your new freestyle trick that is super top secret until UNICON. This is only my opinion, but I find it very immature for you to take a prototype, given as a gift, and advertise the flaws in it. That should be between you and Marco/Olaf, and has no place on this or any other forum.
In case Marco or Olaf is reading this, I’d like to point out that I’m happy to test any of their products for free, and I promise not to make any rude comments about it on a forum if I find any problems. Nor will I deliberately use (abuse) it in a way it’s not designed to be used. My riding isn’t anywhere near as good as that of Julia, Leo, Jacob or Terry but I am a trained engineer.
Well if you don’t ask you don’t get 
^+1 plus im heavy
So was my response. “NOT a standard”, “or well-thought-out use” “of any hub” is a statement that’s 3x not true.
So you read something on a forum, a cycling related forum for sake, and you replicate it as an advice, without having experience? Gee, I never expected that to happen on such places on the web, with such intelligent people around!
I still have to get used to the new terminology; “freestyle hub”, I always though it was for extreme unicycling. Ultralite, great for the high jumps of Joe Hodges or the trial skills of Mark Fabian. And fantastic for the skills Kristóf Horváth and Krisztián Kovács. I can’t exactly spot when and why suddenly the label “freestyle” hub came in. I always had the illusion freestyle was less extreme, and 7075-T6 Certified Aluminium (Ergal) was the best aluminium you can find.
At another dealer, in the UK, I’m reading: “This new design allows to keep the durability and strength that a professional hub needs.” but also “This hub is not suitable for jumping or heavy use”. That I find conflicting information. Professionals are not suppose to jump or use it heavily?
And talking about wrong presentation of information:
This make it sound the now-called freestyle hub was designed for freestyle. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was not.
In trial there was a need for low-weight unicycles, in freestyle there was not. In fact weight reduce on especially the wheel make performing in general more difficult. And you guaranteed that it was not for aesthetic purposes.
Wow, now you’re putting things in context, I come to realize: my old crappy hub must be extreme and extremely strong, to last so long with all this super-extreme forces and still not break. Such a bargain for what now turns such a extraordinairy miracle-hub.
But OK, I admit; the hub I was using in the past was designed ONLY for the purpose of pair acrobatics.
I was wasn’t posting mad4one failure everywhere, I was giving my point of view, (…in stead of replicating without own experience…), in a relevant technical thread, and soon later (but still very unexpected) I was able to provide hard and real evidence of my standpoint. I did not started posting in capitals titled “Mad4One just sucks - look over here”. If I had mallicious intends, I would have done that everywhere! Then still, I wont expect to surprise people, except those that are overestimating the capacities. That must exclude anyone involved with M41.
Stating that 19 years ago I choosed a lacing patter only to now defame a +/- 3 year old brand, is not exactly mean-spirited, but I think somewhat overreacting, and not very realistic.
For some reason I see you’re pretty mad 4 one hub. While (when you check the video) I don’t say any mad word during the event. Also I didn’t notice you made posting simular opinions when SmileyMarco mentioned many broken Kris Holm hubs.
- Correction: 5 pin cranks + normal hub, nowedays labeled freestyle hub.
- Wow, I thought that hub was only my problem. Now you have a bigger problem? Oh dear.
- What’s wrong with public criticism?
Is it because you can’t come with stronger counter-arguments than an inferior alternative theory, or a hacksaw or a truck, or examples of sponsored riders that don’t say much to me?
Eh? What? Each time you make so fast your own wrong conclusions, I barely can’t keep up.
- Correction: I was never sponsored by any unicycle brand.
I never have to pretend that things are perfect, while knowing different. I always was able to make my own opinion, able to have my own opinion, and able to share my opinion. So also to publish it here, when the OP asked a simple question on I can share my opinion and experience now.
So; I was not given anything at all - I paid for it. The regular 10 pin ISIS cranks were sold out, so I had to wait or accept this pair, that I was told to be better.
I have bought them directly online, and paid the full consumer price, without discount.
So this emotional chantage doesn’t work now. But it does at other M41 users who complain to me about that.
If my posts are that inappropiate, hit the report button, and complain to Gilby. Beg for locking this thread, or an IP ban or so.
You seem confused.
Prototype parts aren’t for sale to the public. You either got it from Marco or you stole it. 
It amazes me that after all this time you still do not know the differences in the hubs you are so intent on discussing. None of the people you just named ride the freestyle hub; they all use(d) the 6-pin, AKA reinforced, hub. The hub you broke in the video was the freestyle hub. They are both made out of ergal aluminum but the reinforced is much stronger.
“2,9” translated to American is “2.0mm”. 14g spokes will totally work.
But don’t read this as Zicral being the same as Ergal.
And I doubt they are truly tradenames.
Strange accusation while knowing I have seen both. The hub that you called freestyle hub is not at mad4one’s website not at any merchant presented with that name. So don’t blame me for not being well-informed enough to your taste.
It also amazes me how often you can’t keep track of the timeline. The moment I was not given the hub, didn’t steal the hub, but bought the hub, there was no reinforced model. I remember pretty clear that at that point at least half the riders I mention tried it for a while. They said this to me, and I have seen it myself on videos, and I have seen it myself IRL.
Not really. Again mind the timeline. I haven’t seen the new one that often yet, but the bigger diameter also left bigger space between the (larger?) pins, so I was unsure the moment I wrote that down, but spending too much time on replieng to you already. As it though I remember mine had 5, as ISIS has 10 splines, I wanted to be sure, and later counted it, and then corrected myself.
Well, if I now show that video to people I know who have been designing hubs for leading BMX brands and leading racing brands, than at one I get a “oh, I had that same problem and solved it very well using solution X to do X, but race-component marketleader X didn’t like that because of marketing argument X”.
So at least I learn from it.
It’s like open source software versus closed. So, I have no idea why it wouldn’t be good.
Looking at the OP and the following two post I think that is the which was discussed, and others -like you- intend on discussing another hub.
