Again, I think if you reviewed my work closely, or tried to design your own hanger and dropout architecture that solves all the problems I am trying to address, you would realize that it’s more than just a basic hanger.
We clearly have different opinions on this, which is fine. Josh from Silca had a great quote on their podcast:
If you don’t understand it, it’s probably not for you!
Honestly, we both sound like PVD.
I have tried to walk a fine line by giving technical responses to the criticism and carefully editing my language so they are not confused as personal attacks, but it’s clearly not working.
Let’s set a good example for the community and either agree to disagree or take this conversion offline.
There are already over 1600 derailleur hanger designs available from original and secondary suppliers. The simplest option is to select from among those. Many designs are manufactured by the original bicycle manufacturers and secondary suppliers. If a design is used on many existing frames then it will probably be supported for a considerable amount of time going forward. It’s not necessary to create a new design.
I don’t think a single derailleur hanger will ever become universal. I predict that there will be three basic designs. One will mount on the inside face of the dropout, one on the outside and another that is offset.
An inside face option is the Motobecane/Boardman option that PILO produces as D968. An outside option is the Cannondale K33049 and an offset option is the Snytace system. These three could form a set of ‘standard’ options that should satisfy most requirements.
Using an industry model simplifies design and sourcing. Framebuilders can purchase one to validate with a dropout design immediately and with minimal expense. Clients can be assured that hanger replacement is convenient and inexpensive.
Obviously the SRAM UDH remains an option for those who prefer it.
Four designs is sufficient for the small custom frame industry and offers sufficient design versatility.
SOShanger.com has 1632 designs to choose from!
Here are the three that I am proposing as candidates for ‘standard’ options. They each offer different solutions to ensure compatibility with various dropout designs. None are ideal as a single universal option, but neither is the SRAM UDH.
Regardless of which hanger you select, you will discover limitations. The approach I took is to design the dropout around the hanger(s). That solves the hanger(s) design and sourcing issue.
Im late to the party it looks like, this has been a fun read.
No…I don’t have to, it already works.
I like using paragons snap ring dropouts, they’re perfect for a lowly hobby builder like me to design and build with. They’re concentric with the axle, their cad models interface nicely and are well configured to be integrated into an assembly. Uses readily available 12mm thru axles for whatever width hub you want.
Need something they don’t offer like an inconel one, bigger diameter, longer hood? The cad is on their website with drawings. It already checks all the boxes.
I have no complaints and will continue to build with them. I’m with @wzrd on this, snap ring dropouts with no snap ring means easy service. The hanger doesn’t want to fall out of the dropout, and if it did it’s not like you’re gonna lose it, there’s a derailer attached to it.
I agree with what you’ve illustrated, having a hanger attach to a dropout with a bolt always creates an additional failure mode. (Bolt backing out, in needed stress riser, etc)
To me an additional bolt for the hanger (that’s getting attached by the axle) adds no value. To a bicycle manufacturer who is building thousands of bikes on an assembly line, a bolt to hold a hanger on to a frame adds a lot of value. It’s not there because it’s a necessity for the user, it’s there because it makes mass assembly faster, and easier.
I think the elephant in the room is the UDH (sorry to mix threads), and designing to an interface, not a specific hanger. I would bet a year from now most buyers of custom MTB frames will be asking for the UDH interface so they can use the direct mount AXS. The SRAM marketing team will do a great job of convincing everyone they must have the direct mount system if they want their bike to shift correctly.
Building bikes that are both forward (UDH direct mount) and backward (UDH hanger) compatible will be the best service to customers, and simplify what a frame builder has to offer. Of course that leaves Shimano as the unknown, but their hand may be forced since they’re always late to the party.
Is there an ideal open source interface that would allow for a hanger solution, and also have cross compatibility with UDH and any future Shimano direct mount? That’s what Paragon has already done with their sliders and polydrops.
Full agreement on the 2 mm screw. It was a band aid fix that is as good as a band aid, it falls off eventually. We have a stainless version of this dropout in the works with a socket/flange to receive the hanger. Available now in titanium, see DR0094 or DR0095.
I saw the thread and immediately went to look for that xkcd. Classic.
Mark, has the stainless BoBI DR1102 been redesigned to get rid of the adhesive bond and 2mm screw as well? The current pic on the website makes it look like the hanger is now held on by a snap-ring instead of adhesive, like the titanium ones. I used the adhesive version on a couple of frames and not at all happy with that design. The part number appears to have been unchanged.
Mark Beaver
Tamarack Cycles
Mark,
Right, it has been redesigned to use the snap ring. I agree with you, the adhesive and tiny screw leaves a lot to be desired. I suppose we should have given it a new P/N or Revision, but we didn’t.
Thanks,
Mark.
Daniel, thanks for putting in the work here and dialing in a reasonable standard. I would love to use this on an open source road frame design I am heading up.
Has there been any more development since your last update?
Hello everyone, great thread here, not sure if it’s still going but currently working on a printed drop out and hanger right now! Any further with the open source hanger? Perhaps Im missing something here but surely something like this is a must if builders are designing more bespoke drop outs with the aid of 3D Printing!? Or am I being completely naive here, can you design a drop out based on someone else’s hangers, for example PMW or just pick one from WheelsMFG and work back from that? Surely there’s some IP infringements? Love this forum, my first post! Been meaning to write for ages but life keeps getting in the way, I’ll do an intro soon!
Since a couple of years I have been using dropouts/hangers of my own design; which is quite similar to the one proposed above. This is probably one of the lightest designs around for thru-axle. (See weight comparison to PMW DR1065s) These are made of 17-4ph Stainless, but I also have 4140 Cro-Mo versions.
I have also Shimano DM hanger design to work with this dropout. If anyone is interested I can supply these.
There is no need to design a ‘universal’ derailleur hanger. You can use one that already exists.
I use the Cannondale K33049 hanger design. I duplicated the geometry and manufactured them. Manufacturing them with CNC machinery provides a better control of the geometry than you get with the inexpensive cast versions.
I doubt that the original manufacturers of derailleur hangers are concerned with intellectual property. If they were, they could easily prevent other companies(some of whom are well established) from selling their designs. I suspect that the original manufacturers encourage this duplication, as it is convenient for the people who purchase their bicycles.
I have designed many dropouts for this derailleur hanger design. They were manufactured with 3D printing, waterjet cutting and CNC machining.
