Exceed Ti hub......

Anybody having one? reviews please?

Thanks friends

if anyone has feedback please state.

In my opinion the best of the titanium hubs currently available. Low-profile flanges which make for a less fragile hub than its competitor which has huge wide flanges which tend to run into bending/cracking problems.

Plus, smaller flanges= easier to find double-butted spokes that fit the wheelbuild. Most 20" BMX-inspired double butted spokes are too long for the average 19" rim and hub.

Lightest hub so far too, which is a plus for some riders. I personally don’t care that much about weight… since whatever works fine rides fine?

Only drawback (to some people) is that you may need to remove the bearings from the spindle before wheelbuilding. Personally, I don’t see it as a problem in any way or shape at all. There are certain methods you can employ to remove a bearing safely without any damage to the races or the bearing itself.

Plus, ISIS bearings can be picked up … pretty damn cheap anyway!

I’m sure those who ride one can offer some good insight too

Thx! does anyone have more info? im interested in this hub

You got pretty much all the info from sponge :slight_smile:
lightest hub on the market, and I think it looks the nicest too…
I know that brendan le foll has one, if you really need any more info you can ask him. :wink:

I ride both Mad4One, and this Exceed hub.
On your final conclusion I agree, but not entirely on your argument, as putting “strong parts” together doesn’t make a strong wheel.
A huge flange makes a stronger wheel, as a small flange put lots of forces on the head (the weakest part) of the spoke.
For that reason track racing bicycle have huge flanges, same for artistic bicycling. The forces on it are different than regular bicycles, same counts for unicycling even more.
Plus I’m sure the characteristics of ti makes up for a lot of bad forces, which heat-treated chromo steal does different. But cheap hubs are’nt heat-treated and maybe even made of cheaper steal sorts.
Of course I rather replace a spoke than a hub, but I’m annoyed to see so many unicyclists suffering broken spokes.

If you know how to do proper wheelbuilding, then this NOT true for spokes up to 2.0 mm.

Reason I resurrect this post is because I was looking for details of the spoke hole. I did not find any information, so therefor I’ll post that when looking at another of the same hub I see that 2.34 spokes still fit easily. But for that spokes, you in deed will have to remove the bearings (or harm your spokes badly).

Holy!!! $452 in USD! 380G (At least that’s the cost here)

M41 Aluminum hub: About 100g lighter than the Ti at 286g. And less than 1/2 the cost of the Ti at $210 USD.

I’m building a new ultra light wheel with the M41, but it will only be used for road climbing so no extreme stuff, no hops, drops, etc.

The size of the flange (as in the diameter, rather than the width) makes not the slightest difference to the forces on the spoke head, not if you build your wheels properly. Why would it?

Because we’re not talking about a bicycle front wheel but a unicycle wheel.

Wheels don’t really care if they’re on a bike or a unicycle - how could they possibly tell?


Flanges are designed to flex, this flex saves the spokes, so the shorter the flange the more likely you are to break spokes.

A unicycle wheel is far more stressed than a bicycle wheel, so though the wheel may not know it’s mounted on a unicycle, you will know because you’ll be doing more maintenance/repairs.


$450 for a one piece Ti hub is a fair price. KH charged $400 for a three piece welded Ti hub which broke and were not replaced even though they were known to be defective. The current KH Ti hub is ~$350 and it’s made with an aluminum hub body which is prone to creaking.

The M41 aluminum hub is less money, but it is also less strong, so you may think you’re getting a deal until it bends/twists, then you are rebuilding a wheel, assuming the hub is warranteed, or you are out your initial investment.

Steel is real, but Ti when done right is as good as steel, though expect to pay four times as much, which is why the only good Ti hub is $450 :smiley:

I’d gladly pay $450 for a one piece high flange Ti hub with a rotor mount, it would save a pound off my wheel.

Late edit on that last post…

It would save 200-250gm going from a chromoly hub to a Ti hub, so closer 1/2 pound, but still a whole lot of weight savings for not much money, while at the same time not hurting performance.

As to the aluminum hub, like that lovely golden Oracle, be forewarned that even some road users have twisted the flange on the aluminum spindled hubs, so hard core hill climbing with big descents might not be a good use for that hub.

The M41 is the ideal hub for my purpose, which will be solely for steep hill climbing. There will be no drops or any impact forces. It would be highly unlikely for the hub to bend or twist as you mentioned, under the described use. I will have the lightest ISIS hub available, at far less cost than the Ti hub, which would be total overkill for my stated purpose.

You need to watch the movie Rubber.

My first-gen TI KH-hub is still alive… and im using it for trials only.
Guess im not that hard to hubs :smiley: Im more likely to break rims…

I dont like the design of the current TI-hub… if i buy TI, i want to see it! No CF-body or something…

No they’re not. They’re really not. I’m sure a hub designer doesn’t sit down and think “how do I make this flange flex more?” - quite the opposite in fact. The irony of course being that leo is correct about track bikes using high flange hubs (back in the old days when track riders used conventional spoked wheels), but the reason advocated for that is increased stiffness!

If you really think flex in a wheel is a good things, then you should be using DT revolution or Sapim Laser spokes (or DT Aerolite/Sapim CX-Ray if you have lots of money and perceive some advantage from those). Hands up who here is using those spokes on their unicycle wheel, and for those advocating high flanges, if not, why not?

Though lets just delve into this thought process a little more - in what direction exactly do you thing the high flanges are flexing?

BTW the point about the wheel not caring what sort of wheeled vehicle it is on is that the physics doesn’t change - I understand the forces are different, but if the size of the flange doesn’t affect the force on the spoke head on a bicycle it won’t on a unicycle either.

For the record (but I think you are aware of it): that’s the KH ti, not the Exceed that we’re discussing here.

I’m not in the flex camp, that flex thing seems even bigger nonsense than what you wrote and write. Although yes, cast-iron is not exactly suitable for a hub, quite the opposite in fact.
I stated that high flanges make stronger wheels. “Stiff” is not the same as “strong”, nor “sturdy” which may be the best word in your language.
Track bikes, Artistic bicycles and unicycle deal with different forces than BMX freestyle bikes, motorcycle wheels, electric bicycle wheels, or normal bikes.

Because Sapim (nor any distributor) has never any stock and never wants to make something in the size of my unicycle wheels.
Or if they do, then against a ridiculous price.
Bytheway, Sapim has nice whitepapers available for download, which I recommend you to read, as you certainly could learn some things from it.

Today I had to think about your post and my response, and that very moment I catched in a video recording:

Now this happens after a proto-type pair of cranks of Mad4One already failed on us. Now am I mad on Mad4One? No, not at all.
The proto-type test cranks were just a test to push the limit. To find the limit you have to get over it.
And the broken hub; it was already known that Ergal is not great in dealing with high tention. The hubs are meant for trial, not for freestyle. And when doing cross 1.5, or cross 1, or (with this hub impossible) cross 0 patterns on these, then you will need extreme tention, as forces on the spokes become much higher than on big flanges, and therefor narrow flanges are incapable to keep a unicycle wheel solid. My posting history shows that I clearly knew that in advance, so the failure was anything but unexpected. The moment it happened was even perfect; now I know I will deal OK with it. Yes, the Exceed is costly, but to me worth it’s price.

Not knowing the background on that hub/wheel failure, I can tell you what I see in the video…

That hub flange failure occurred because the flange was overloaded. Radial (or low cross) lacing is inappropriate for torque bearing wheels; that includes all unicycle wheels, all bicycle rear (drive) wheels, and all disc-brake bicycle front wheels. It overloads the spokes (due to the high tensions required to make the wheel torsionally stiff) and it overloads the flange (because all spokes are pulling “outward” the forces don’t cancel each other out locally). Some bicycle hub manufactures, notably Chris King, prohibit radially lacing on most of their hub designs.

If a spoke leaves the flange at a 90deg angle (as in a radially spoked wheel), how can it convey a torque? It it were to leave the hub at a tangent (for example, a 4-cross wheel is usually very close to this), when you try to twist the wheel, the tension on half the spokes increases, pulling the rim along. If it leaves at a 90deg angle (radially laced), then twisting the hub does nothing to increase the tension until the hub “winds up” and the angle changes from 90 degrees. The closer the angle is to 90 degrees, the greater the increase in the spoke tension needed to convey the torque.

Hubs designed to flex? No way. And certainly not to “save” spokes. High flange vs low flange? The difference is largely historical. All modern high tension wheels, independent of the spoke gauge, flange size, etc, are so stiff as to be modeled as a solid as compared to the tire.

Track bikes used high flange hubs because ancient spokes couldn’t handle the tension that spokes can today. At lower tensions, it was important to bring the flanges up toward the rim, which in turn increased the angle between the left-flange and right-flange spokes, making the wheel stiffer and stronger. It had nothing to do with forces on the head of the spoke (which are not a function of flange size).

Is that an ad-hom I see there?

As far as wheels go, there’s a pretty good correlation between stiff and strong - I’m also still waiting to see your argument why you think high flanges make stronger wheels. In any case, the original point I picked up on was your claim that:

which is just plain wrong.

The magnitude of the forces might be higher, but that doesn’t change the way the forces are distributed in the wheel. I’m really not quite sure why you keep bringing up track bikes though, as the forces in their wheels are little different to those in road racing bicycles - is it just because you think their use of high flange hubs supports your argument?

So what exactly about spokes and wheels is it you think I’m wrong about which those whitepapers would correct me on? :roll_eyes:

So is this what you are basing your whole argument on? That you managed to break a hub by lacing it incorrectly in a way which overstressed it? adelman has already mostly covered that issue though.

You could always try cross 2 or cross 3 as is traditional. You’d then find such a small flange hub perfectly adequate at dealing with the tensions of the spokes. In fact a large flange hub would be just as likely to break if you laced that in a similar way. It’s your choice of lacing pattern which is the problem, not the size of the flanges.

Some good stuff there, thanks for the support, but the thing about large flange hubs making a wheel stiffer and stronger is also largely a myth. The spoke length used with a large flange hub and tangential (3 cross) lacing is almost identical to that with a small flange hub. Given basic geometry and that the lateral distance between the flange and the rim is identical for small and large flange hubs (as the flange is still in the same position on the hub), it is clear that the bracing angle hasn’t improved.

The fallacy is the idea that a large flange hub moves the head of the spoke towards the rim, whilst with tangential lacing it actually moves the head of the spoke parallel to the rim.

Oh, and whilst I’m at it, it’s worth mentioning that spoke tension doesn’t actually make a difference to the stiffness of a wheel in normal use (provided tension is high enough that you don’t have spokes going completely slack), though it can make a difference to the strength.