Stiffness. The round crown frames are generally stiffer in the crown area (Mad4One and Oracle frames) that frames that are welded at the crown. Although as is noted the profile of the tube makes a big difference.
I have compared the Mad4One frames with others for stiffness and it did not appear to be stiffer than any other round crown frame.
Frames that are noticeable stiffer than others are (in order of stiffness):
Hatchet (it has that big box crown and large tubing).
Nightfox (it does not have a crown as other frames and is incredibly stiff, if it was a muni size I would put it at the top of this list)
Impact Gravity (this is a pressure formed frame fabricated around a forged seat tube giving it incredible crown stiffness - combine this with 2 bearings per leg makes it stiffest complete unicycle)
Round crown frames (I will not say if Mad4One or the Oracle is stiffer).
KH (this has the forged crown, and at the seatpost joint is incredibly stiff but has welded joints to oval tubingā¦ it should be stiffer than it appears, but is probably the strongest frame on the market at the crown. It comes with a weight penalty)
Q-Axel (this is less rigid and heavier than I expectedā¦ I donāt understand why, the design is good)
Nimbus Muni (these have good steel frames and perform like steel frames, this means strong, but not super stiff when compared with aluminium frames)
Qu-Ax Muni (these are steel with pressed bearing housings and are flexible)
Weight: the Mad4One frames are light, but not noticeably lighter if at all than other aluminium frames in the same category. The KH has the forged crown that makes it super strong, it does add weight though.
The thing that makes the Mad4One unicycles lighter is the components, not just a single item like the frame. The tyre being the biggest difference on most models. I love their tires, they are great for summer conditions.
Roger, I think QX frames are made of 6061 aluminum and not 7005 compared to KH and Mad4One, I donāt remember about Oracle. This can explain stiffness ?
The medium aluminium muni frame is listed as having an inside width (tyre clearance) of 91mm.
Does anybody have a medium or large aluminium frame to hand to confirm the following?
Outside width of the medium frame
Both inside and outside width of the large frame
Iām deciding whether I want a M or L. Iām tempted to go L for extra mud clearance and futureproofing, but Iām concerned that it might hit my legs.
roughly measured 144mm āouter widthā and 102mm āinner widthā for a large frame at the widest point. You might want to ask Mad41 if you want precise measurements of the latest version/batch. That said, I guess it hasnāt changed.
Mud and future are good arguments. My legs donāt mind. I donāt know about yours.
Q-Axel (this is less rigid and heavier than I expectedā¦ I donāt understand why, the design is good)
the same as the RGB frames? If not, any idea how it compares? Seems like a round crown with 31.8mm seat tube would help with stiffness, but their low weight might actually make them less stiff?
I think the explanation is partly very simple, why the weights are sometimes given without bearing shells:
When I started selling unicycles and parts over 20 years ago, I had a simple hook scale. It was much easier to just hang the fork on it and read the weight. I continued to do this and when I bought a more accurate platform scale 10 years later I didnāt feel like re-weighing all the forks so I just continued to put the forks on the scale so you could compare the weight.
Itās not exactly impossible to put the bolts and the bottom of the bearing housings on the scale as well.
You can even fit a frame on a tiny coffee scale, and you can normally use the same method to weigh everything (including a shortened seatpost) but the wheel.
Ooh look, hereās when I did that with my 27.5" RGB (which I discovered typically has a weight quoted which is far too low):
if it was an answer to my post, then you probably didnāt read it properly, which is why the weights were given without bearing shells over 20 years ago.
I think as long as it is clearly written that it is weighed without bvearing shells, everything is correct.
Itās probably best like here with the Fatty fork: Specify the weight with and without bearing shells, then you have full transparency and comparability
It was the best example image I had. This is actually also including the seat, and post, and the bit I cut off shortening it too.
It was back when I was weighing my Qu-Ax RGB to determine what it actually weighed, which was very off from the stated weight.
Anyway, thatās getting a little off topic.
I didnāt misread your post, but I think this is the answer.
Weights of frames should either be specified complete, or have both weights listed.
Hubs are tricker, as bearings and bolts can be changed, but at the very least they should have the weight listed as they come (complete with bearings, and bolts)
sometimes certain things become established because thatās the way youāve always done it and you never question it because it doesnāt cross your mind. But itās a good idea to re-weigh the forks with bearing shells when i have some free time
I donāt think itās much of an issue for older frames, but for new frames, 99% of customers are only ever going to care about what it weighs complete, and being able to compared that against other frames, complete.