Why should they? What exactly is this new interface supposed to solve? The problems of hipsters stripping their cogs/lockrings because they are using cheap **** or because of improper installation? These problems are because of user idiocy not because the interface is flawed, doesn't work or is inferior to the "level" way.

Levels hubs serve a niche group inside an already niche group of cyclists.

Miche has already tried this stunt with the cog/carrier. That turned out well.

Sure, but has shimano ever released specs? Or did the third parties just measure shimano stuff to get the dimensions? Freewheels don't need a precise fit so getting the dimensions and tolerances spot on wasn't important.

If you are going to use a standard to define parts that need a precise fit then the standard needs to be able to deliver. In this case I doubt it does. Either because the standard doesn't demand a precise enough fit in the first place or because only shimano actually makes stuff to the standard.
You might as well just buy a level because you would end up in the same position. Only being able to buy cogs from the hub manufacturer because that is the only way to get a precise fit.

Wait a second there: are you saying that a SRAM, BBB, Tiso, IRD or Suntour cassette fits more loosely to the freehub than a Shimano one? Or that they don't have the means (if they really had to reverse-engineer the specs, ludicrious as this would sound (it does)) to do precise measurements of a Shimano freehub? Any of these companies could afford a micrometer-precise measurement device. Heck, most could afford a SEM microscope for that matter, measure a group of 20 cassettes and get the specs. I don't think the problems lies in the precision of fitting.

If you want to argue that it's a worse solution than threaded because, hmmm... after a while it wold develop some play when used with a fixed hub, well, I actually don't know, that might happen. But the fitting tolerances, that's no issue at all.

The splines on the hub would have to be steel to prevent play from developing, so either the hub is steel or you need another interface.

Fail.

The ISO disc rotor pattern is the obvious solution for this, we're just waiting for someone to make a production hub and cogs that yields a standard chainline and a symmetrical wheelbuild.

Why couldn't the hub be made of steel? You realize, don't you, that this hub would not be a freehub anyway, but it would have to be a separate, new product. And in that case, it could be made of steel, and fixed.

steel is heavier, corrodes, and most importantly for manufacturers - is more costly to machine (pretty sure on that one, but our machinist friend could chime in)

Only the interface needs to be made of steel. That is, only the part where the splined sprocket would lay.

and how do you join the alu and stl? 6 bolt disc is what's up.

For fixed gear i think the best way is the bolt on method, like for disk brakes.

I have not found a dual disk rear hub though. And i am sure it will cost tons, just cause its not mainstream.

And it attaches to the Al hub, so you've solved the problem of not wanting to have a steel-Al interface by creating the necessity of a steel-Al interface.

Fail.

The necessity was to avoid using a threaded aluminum interface, which this design accomplishes. Forming a reliable Steel-Al interface in a factory is no technological problem. There are a million ways you can passivate aluminum and attach steel to it.

Again, why not put whichever really good steel-Al interface you're planning on using directly on the cog? And once you've chosen how you're going to do that, what makes it better than the already industry standard ISO disc pattern?

Actually, My first fixed hub was fixing a splined freehub to the hub body ( image in the other thread). Yes, the play had developed between the cog and the cassette body. Widening the cog base and swapping the light alloy cassette for the steel one helped only so much.
You can not make the fit tight enough so the play doesn't develop and maintain the interchangeability.

almost word for word what i was going to say.

why would you want double disc? you'd run fixed gear and a disc brake? sounds worse than drive side radial lacing.

Why would disc and fixed be bad, exactly?

Also, does anyone know what the stock "chainline" (as it were) for a rear disc brake is? I'm guessing it's wider than 42mm, so for a hub with ISO plates on both sides you'd need some kind of spacer to use it for fixed and disc (cyclocross/MTB madness) instead of just like a flipflop. Not a huge deal, tho.

I think he was trying for flip-flop-ability.

Standard for the front is below 41 measured to the interface plane giving perfect chainline for cogs of about 2.5 mm thickenss. The rear is closer to 47, though, which has its advantages, too ( outer ring in road duble)

@astronomical

flip flop, makes sense.

@landgolier
wouldn't fixed and disc put too much stress on the hub?

How would it be more stress than geared and disc?

agreed. keep dumbing down bikes for "novices" who can't figure out relatively simple concepts and you wind up w/this

He's saying that SRAM, BBB< Tiso, IRD and Suntour probably do have equipment to reverse-engineer the cassette. His comment about tolerances was that it wasn't as important for a cassette. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

More likely Shimano licenses their specs to other manufacturers while Campy does not. I'm pretty sure the splined interfaces would be patented so reverse-engineering them would be illegal.

Well, this is exactly what I was saying all along - the reverse-engineering angle was just to show that there is no way manufacturers couldn't get the tolerances right, and it was, as I said, ludicrious that anyone would have to or want to reverse-engineer.

It's interesting to see how you went full-circle from criticizing my point of view, to actually agreeing that the Shimano cassette interface is a de-facto standard (and campi isn't). No, I don't expect you'd ever admit to this hahah, it doesn't matter.

Two points there:

• The Al-steel interface is better put on the part that is least often changed, that is, the hub. This way the sprocket can be all-steel and it is cheaper that way (cheaper than fabricating it from two different metals).
• I never argued whether this or that is better. I never said ISO disc bolt pattern wouldn't be a good idea. You must be confusing me with someone else.

1. A cog on a rear disc brake lines up with the middle chainring on a MTB (not that it should matter too much if you know how to measure for a BB)

2. Hell yeah to production disc cogs! If Surly would get off their asses and redrill the holes on their cassette cogs, we might have something. Though they do have a wide base, so it might not sit flush against the disc flange. Oh, and considering producing disc cogs, if anyone is intersted, PM me.

3. Splined interface? Hell yeah! I stripped my hub last week, and I'm going disc-fixed for the forseable future.

-ROb.