Originally Posted by
JohnDThompson
I have one that is modified in the manner described on
Sheldon Brown's web site. The flat springs under the pawls do provide reliable engagement of the pawls, but the springs themselves are wear items; as the pawl moves on the spring, it eventually erodes through it and the spring will no longer ensure engagement of the pawl. That's as close as I've managed to getting an SW as reliable as an AW.
Over the years I've run across a handful of SW hubs modified this way, most were still working to some extent but they were far from ideal. I think they would have done better by simply using a roller clutch versus the half moon shaped pawls. (Similar to how a Shimano Roller brake works). That would have given a positive engagement and no 'clicking' noise.
The problem there yet again would be proper hardening of the components.
The SW works 'sort of okay' if all parts are 100%, but as soon as any part is compromised or the oil becomes too thick, its a crap shoot.
I have one bike with a brand new SW hub, its perfectly fine to ride on warm sunny days, it functions as it should about 95% of the time. Its that other 5% of the time that's the real issue. You can have total slippage, partial binding, or just a bad or incomplete shift. After a bit of riding you do get the 'feel' for when it didn't engage fully or is about to slip but my feeling is that why bother with something that's so inconsistent when a simple AW upgrade makes everything as it should be without any concern of eating asphalt due to a hub slipping into neutral without warning or having to be 'careful' about how you shift or apply pedal pressure in fear of taking a header.
SW hubs are perfectly fine for hub collections and museum pieces that don't get ridden, beyond that, get an AW.