As far as I know, the 2014 model is supposed to work with spacers (which are forbidden for the current model) and thus will provide compatibility to Kris’ EDB standard (external disc brake). The latest thing I heared about a release date was fourth quarter of 2014.
Many people asked Florian about this new generation and I have heared many things about it, but do not know what is truth and what is wish or fiction. Some say, there will be two versions. Others tell Florian said the hub will be narrower and have a seat for a disc brake rotor. Another change could probably be about torque support (or anti rotation system as you call it).
One guy wrote to Florian and got an answer which I will quote here:
Translation:
Until now, I have not heared anything about the price.
I never rode with a Schlumpf hub but I read somewhere that there is some play in the hub making it feel like you’re riding with a lose crank. Is this true? and if so is it just when you’re beginning your ride or is it like that throughout the ride.
Maybe that’s something that will be sorted in the next model.
I think the current gear ratio is fine for the medium sized wheels 24, 26, 29, but on 36er a 1:1.33 ratio might be preferable. I wonder has Florian done any market research on peoples preferred gear ratio.
It would be interesting to see what ratio would be most popular with riders on this forum.
I’m asking all these questions because I’m considering buying a Schlumpf hub when the next batch comes on the market
My wallet is holding out the white flag as I speak lol!
The issue of gear lash comes up from time to time on the general Schlumpf discussion thread (which begins here: Schlumpf hubs: general discussion. )
There will always be some, or you wouldn’t be able to shift the gears. But in my experience, it isn’t that much, and you get used to it fairly quickly. You don’t notice it at all when you are pedaling steadlily forward.
Thanks guys, I’ll go for it. I intend putting it on my KH 24" first and when I’ve mastered it then I’ll transfer it onto my KH 36er. I’m gonna wait 'til this new model comes out. Hopefully it will be available this year…
One day we might get a 1.33 but i dont see it being too viable for Florian to manufacture them anywhere in the near future unless we get heaps more riders, and a s*#t load of more unicyclists to investing in a geared hub.
I love the idea of a 1.33 ratio but i see i would only be happy with it for the Muni. More i ride my 26G on road at maximum around 70% cadence, i dont think less than 1.5 will be very good…
I have another hub for my next guni. Kh36er, i think it will be scary crazy fast near tapped out speed at 1.5 and hell climbing small hills geared up so maybe 1.33 could be more suited to 36in…
If they get made put my name on the pre order list too. i will find a uni which will making riding that little more enjoyable and faster going with less effort.
honestly now after riding 1.5 for a while. 1.33 is not the holy grail, one and only.
1.5 has its well deserved place. 1.33 might be too much of a novelty. or a beginners geared hub…
The current models can be setup well with a bit of care and being particular. i dont think i have had a slip using carbon paste/ grease in my bearing cups. Just make sure it doesnt go near seals because its like sand paper on moving surfaces.
Hello M.T. I suppose using longer cranks would reduce the ratio somewhat… so that’s an option.
I’ve heard mention of the hub “slipping”. Would you please explain that to me and is it dangerous ? I’m thinking that on shifting gear the hub bearings are slipping in the bearing cups causing the rider to lose purchase as s/he pedals, causing a freewheel effect. Is that correct?
I’m not M.T., but crank length doesn’t affect ratio. Leverage and wobble, sure, but the ratio remains unaffected by crank length.
Yeah, pretty much. The geared hub has to anchor against something. The current scheme involves a knurled surface which fits into the bearing holder like a bearing would. If that slips, you’re suddenly nearly freewheeling until it decides otherwise. Such a time is generally going to be when it is quite important to not be doing that, and an Unexpected Precarious Dismount[1] becomes likely as a result. So it would be as dangerous as any other UPD. Usually not, except when it is.
I read that old Schlumpfs had an arm which connected with the frame, but that was before my time. One assumes that that scheme had some shortcoming which resulted in the use of the current one.
I wish I could say that I was in the market for a geared hub, but it’s not in the cards at the moment.
One thing that always puzzled me about the torque arm arrangement on the Schlumpf hub is that unicycles have two mounting holes on the frame made to order for attaching the transmission. I figure there must be a reason why the current knurled bearing wasn’t made with a couple of lugs that the bolts could go through to replace the lower bearing housing; otherwise, it seems so obvious to me. Another idea I had a while back was that the same knurled piece could have an “ear” on it that would be sandwiched between the lower cap and the frame. In this setup you would need an alternate lower cap to accommodate the thickness of the ear, but that wouldn’t be to much trouble.
Thanks for the insights and rational approach. The 1.33 does seem to have a market, but even the 1.5 market isn’t that large. 1.33 would be smaller.
As far as climbing in 1.5 (on a G36) goes, it is a bit of a beast. That’s why shifting is nice. That’s where picking a crank size to manage both gears becomes interesting. Those who gravitate towards the 137ish (or shorter) side of things do it sometimes for the smoother spin. Sometimes it’s to reach the shift buttons easier too. I totally see both those points.
I’m running 150s so I can leave it in high gear a bit longer. I also like the 1:1 with 150s for going up pretty much any hill I can find. I like them for gravel roads and a bit of off roading too. I do lose a bit on the spin, but it’s the compromise I prefer. With size 12(US) shoes I don’t need to worry about reaching the shift buttons. I’ve thought about 137s, but I don’t feel the need to go a whole lot faster than I can on 150s.
I’ve had no problem with slip, but have known of others have problems with freewheeling. These issues were traced to loose cranks and cranks that didn’t sit far enough on the spindle and rubbed the frame.
No matter what the ratio, check your bolts for safety’s sake.
It’s really just the mock bearing on the one side that brings up my confusion. I have worked on geared bicycle hubs for decades, and they all need to have a fixed point of resistance for the hub to torque against. On bikes it’s usually anti-rotation washers that fit into the dropouts and fit against flats on the axle. The Schlumpf method seems to be an extension of this sort of anti rotation idea, but my question is why. Why not just bolt a flange directly to the upper bearing housing on the frame? It would be simple, effective, and repeatable. In fact installation would be no more work than installing a standard uni hub. Plus, it would never, ever slip.
Maybe they are worried about the extra torque on the frame.
Not sure if this is quite what you mean, but I always thought it’d be good if they had an arm coming out that went up into your frame, sort of like old-timey lollipop bearings. Then you can put your bearing cups on and tighten it in. Then it’d basically fit on any frame, with the right width/cup size
Just FYI, there was a video posted a while back by Terry “Unigeezer” Peterson that suggested putting a piece of aluminum foil tape in the bearing cup on the knurled bearing side of the Schlumpf hub. This gives the knurling something to “bite” into, and the adhesive side of the tape helps prevent spinning in the bearing cup. I happened to have a roll of this on hand, and tried it when I was assembling my G32. So far I haven’t had any freewheel or slipping problems.
I’m dying to know.
