CushDrive Sprocket System - Bolt On Cush Hub

Yours is the same damn thing , only heavier with the side plates.

Mate if you dont like them why dont you just get over it and move on

Snake oil bothers me. Wanna buy a bridge ? There's a reason no bike manufacturer has produced anything like this , it's crap.

It strikes me that there a million lousy products that you could go crusade against, You've said your piece about a prior style of sprocket, now why not go find someone else to hassle? Maybe try the people selling magnetic bracelets, or penis pills. I highly doubt you've spent anytime examining the engineering of the Mox Sprocket. Bike manufactures don't offer this product because they don't give a shit if their motors or drivetrains last ten minutes past the warrant expiry. I on the other hand want to be able to run my bike on a wide variety of terrain with a wide variety of tires, for many years. Your advice would be "install a product that doesn't exist" or rebuild your bottom end at random intervals for thousands of dollars and dozens of man hours. If I can spend a couple hundred dollars and reduce that risk, I'm all for it.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - Sell me a cush hub for 2011 Husqvarna TE630. If you can keep the price close to thatnf a Mox Sprocket too that would be a bonus. If you can't do that then you're done, AFAIK.

I urge all of the lemmings that waste their money in hope of this product actually benefitting them to reply here as a warning to others when it doesn't. This is NOT complex engineering , there is no magic to it , it simply cannot , by it's design provide any measurable benefits.

Don't confuse initial outlay w/ total cost of ownership over some agreed-to mileage. I'll take a wait-and-see position until folks have run them a few miles. The initial outlay for a cush hub & wheel assembly is high but ongoing maintenance is only regular bearing, rubber and sprocket replacement. I'm curious to see how that compares w/ cush sprocket replacement on a similar bike over the same mileage.

I'm sure folks will be pleased if the cush sprocket turns out to be inexpensive, reliable and has good longevity. Time will tell.

So crash bars, comfy seats, cramp busters, hand guards, grip warmers, and good tires must all be subjectively crap since very few OEMs provide these products by that logic...

You're right on one count, it's not complex engineering. If you look at the most basic of approach of impact force, you start with F=0.5*m*v^2/d where F is obviously force, m is mass, v is velocity, and d is the distance the across which the impact is realized. When you go from virtually zero (normally there is some minor dampening in the chain, tire, wheel, and countershaft) to having even just a small amount of travel, your realized impact force is dramatically reduced. That bit of super simple statics should be enough to explain why the force seen across the rest of your system is dramatically reduced, but lets continue.

The reason old designs didn't work and why new ones can work are for a few reasons. One is the vector of force, meaning how your two 'immovable' pieces of the hub interact and which direction the force vector faces. This will dictate how much area you get when analyzing impact pressure. The other major factor is the material used. Plastics and rubbers are so extremely diverse and change so quickly that it is impossible to assume that any two identical designs utilize the same materials. I worked with self-lubricating thermosets for a long time and we would have weekly meetings to discuss mechanical properties of the exact same products with minor differences in chemistry because the changes were so dramatic. Just from photos alone I can see the failed design was based on rubber with has virtually no UV protection in long term use, poor heat protection, and relatively compressive strength. I believe that first design, because the rubber used was likely a very low durometer, built up way more heat than intended. This second design appears to be a type of polyurethane or something similar. Absolutely no way to assume any mechanical properties of the material used. It could be 100% proprietary.

I have no horse in this race, just don't be ignorant. Clearly someone is working hard to start their own business here, you have no reason to knock them over another companies sloppy engineering. Wait for reviews if you're so hurt by this.

I'm not hurt by this at all. It's just a money grab and it bothers me. No matter the density of the cushions , it simply doesn't have the movement to give it any potential as currently executed.

It's hard to follow your line of logic, but I'm going to try. I think you're comparing to a normal cush hub which is much closer to the center of the wheel. The cushions used are thicker, which is appropriate. Because the resultant torque at the center of the wheel is the greatest. A sprocket like this realizes it's compressive force further away from the center of the wheel and as a result, if we apply the same amount of torque, will be a lesser force than that realized by a normal cush hub. Understand? It's like using a breaker bar. Density is only part of how this system operates. The location is also very important.

The amount of available movement is too little , more so by the fact that it's farther from the axle. The thickness of the cushions has nothing to do with the load applied , BUT the load , along with the thickness , width and density all determines the amount of ''give''. The thickness , or lack there of in this case , of the cushions leaves too little ''give''. Stiffer cushions , with the current design , obviously won't cushion much and softer doesn't have the room before it runs out of movement. It all sounds great to someone with money and a need , but this products cannot fill that need as designed , and there wasn't much designing put into it.

Lol I'm trying to quantify my reasoning here. You keep saying it's too little, can you please quantify that? What's the number between too little and just enough? If you're using the distance from the axle to support your argument, then a assume angular distance is what you're after. Why does the change in angle matter when what you're looking for is that reduction in impulse? When you have the mechanical advantage of being further from the axle, your resultant force is lower, what is the purpose of traveling further and adding slop?

I've been wrong before and may be wrong now, I'm just asking you to quantify your assumptions if you're going to bother to bad mouth this product. Give people a good reason to avoid it.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

IT CAN'T CUSHION IF IT HAS LITTLE TO NO MOVEMENT. I only mentioned relation to the axle because YOU did , pay attention.

Haha the very first comment I left shows how dramatic even just a small distance to cushion can reduce impact force and the relationship to the axle demonstrates why the force is reduced versus a normal cush hub. A little movement is a substancially difference.

If you want to assume that distance is the only factor in cushion, irrelevant to location, that's fine. I'm just glad your line of reasoning is explained here.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

You've got it backwards. To equal , for example , the available movement of a cush hub , the sprocket's available movement needs to be greater , because it is farther from the center of rotation.

Take a simple sum of moments. I will use well rounded numbers for you. Let's say your chain applies a force equal to 50lbf. Your sprocket is 6" OD. So the resultant moment about the axle is 25ft*lbf. So let's look at the system in the cush hub. Let's say the cushions are at 5"OD. So looking at the axle in a static situation (let's say a hard launch, moments before movement). Your forward torque is 25ft*lbf about the axle, your reaction force at the cushion is F*5" equal to 25ft*lbf. So F is 59.5lbf. Now consider the normal cush hub, 2" from axle. Resultant force is F*2" equal to 25ft*lbf. In this case, F is 156.25lbf. A very large difference. So if using a ratio based on these large assumptions, your travel distance would need to be something like 1/3rd of a normal cush hub. I could get a more exact number if I was at my computer. Hopefully that clears things up for you.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

How much movement is enough? Depends on what range of forces you are trying to reduce. If you are just trying to protect the splines, it wouldn't take much movement. If you are trying to smooth out all power pulses that you can feel, that takes more/softer range of motion. Also, there is such a thing as too much slop. I've ridden a number of bikes that are so sloppy that you have to wait to take up the slack, followed by a forward jerk. What amount of motion is just right? Serious question. I'd really like to hear from people that have tried both back to back. My 501s, after 1500 miles is almost smooth enough now. Miserable when it was new. Be nice to have some reviews.

Forget about the torque numbers for a minute and look at the geometry. The cushions being farther from the center of rotation need more available movement than a cush hub , not less.

The movement needed is a factor of force realized. You literally cannot ignore torque unless the bike is just sitting still... And I don't think any design would fail when not under use lol

Angular displacement is determined my the force.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

The biggest problem with thumpers is people chugging them , too low RPM and the chain is snatching back and forth. Most of it can be avoided by down shifting or clutching and blipping the throttle at roll on from a trailing throttle.

Nice talking to you , but I'm not prepared to teach you what you refuse to try to understand. You give engineers a bad name , you can't see the forest through the trees. A degree cannot give you common sense nor expertise in everything.