Tourist in MSN

I am beginning to regret making the comment that 130mm would be a disadvantage, as that seems to have started a war here.

cyccommute 

No…no…no…etc…etc. The question wasn’t about frame compatibility. The question Doug64 asked was

For someone who throws insults about reading comprehension, you seem to have some weaknesses in that area.

No…no…no…etc…etc. The next thing you know someone answers the question and some other yabo comes along and starts dragging the conversation off towards watermelons and garden racks.

Actually a 10% tension imbalance improvement when making a valid comparison. Or did you have that reading comprehension problem again.

As for buying a whole new bike, lots of people don’t want to do that. Tourists in general don’t embrace the “latest and greatest” that much. They have their reasons. I don’t always agree with them but at times I do.

Yan 

You should really stop. You're getting loony.

If you think a 4% improvement is a big deal, all the more power to you. We get it, ok.

Keep the crazy out of here.

stardognine

Now that's not fair. I haven't even posted in this thread, for quite awhile. 😋😁😉

I sincerely hope noone takes things too seriously, in these "friendly arguments". There's a lot of good info here. 🙂

pdlamb

I must have missed it! I thought I'd wondered onto the set of Grumpy Old Men...

indyfabz

“Moron!”

cyccommute 

As is so usual for you, I point out something and you completely ignore it. Here are the calculations you did along with that Deore 135mm hub that people who tour commonly use. An XT would work but it has similar dimension to the Deore. You can see from the charts that the difference between the 130mm hub and the 135 mm hub isn’t 4% nor is it “negligible” in terms of magnitude of the tension differential. I’d say that a differential of 10 percentage points can be classified as substantial.






And, while there is an advantage of going with an off-center drilled rim, there is an equal advantage of using the same off-center rim with the other two hubs. All things being equal, the 135mm rim makes for a stronger wheel. That answers Doug64’s question.





All your hand waving and obfuscation does is muddy the water.

Again, do you disagree with the wheel manufacturer?

cyccommute 

Well, one (slightly) grumpy old man. I don’t think he has the old part going for him.

Doug64

None of those actions were even considered

Yan 

WRONG!

You need to brush up your knowledge of drivetrain development in the last few years. Things have changed in the Shimano hub world which apparently you do not know about. That Deore FH-M510 hub is in no way comparable to the 105 FH-R7000. That's why I put so much emphasis on comparing hubs within the same product line. Let me explain:

The Deore hub you mentioned is the old standard that Shimano has been using since the 8 speed era, which had cross compatibility with both road and mountain cassettes. However in the last few years Shimano has broken compatibility between their road and mountain cassette standards. Shimano 11 speed road cassettes require a longer freehub body than mountain cassettes. The reason is that mountain cassettes have huge low cogs, which can cantilever over the spokes even when installed on a shorter freehub. Road cassettes can't do this so they need the longer freehub body. The FH-R7000 is an 11 speed road compatible hub with the longer freehub standard. The Deore hub you mentioned has the old shorter freehub standard. Since the freehub is shorter, the spokes on the Deore hub can also be more outboard, improving the spoke angle.

So when you go from 130 to 135mm in your example, you're not actually only gaining spoke angle as enabled by the wider hub shell. You're in fact gaining additional spoke angle as enabled by the shorter freehub standard. That's why the tension appears to be better than going from one road hub to another road hub. You're talking about an entirely different freehub standard! It's the same as comparing a high speed count hub to a low speed count hub. Of course then the spoke angle would be better. But what kind of fake comparison is that??? Stay in the SAME freehub length, THEN compare!

Any time someone more knowledgeable tries to explain something to you, you just pile in with a bunch of even more incorrect information. When will you run out?

Tourist in MSN

He might have meant me when I said: Not really a problem with steel frames, and most touring bikes have steel, not aluminum frames. You usually can just use a 135mm hub if you want. I have been using a 135mm hub in my 130mm rando bike frame since the day I bought it, that has a steel frame. I just have to use a small amount of extra muscle to spread the stays when I drop the wheel into the frame.

cyccommute 

We shall see.

It doesn’t matter that the Deore hub and the 105 hub aren’t in the same line. The changes you laid out would make little difference in the way the spoke length, spoke tension, nor the way the wheel is built. They are similar enough for comparison and a far better comparison than a rim hub to a disc hub.

A longer freehub body isn’t going to improve the tension differential. Quite the opposite. It’s going to increase the dish and increase the tension difference. It doesn’t matter that the freehub body is wider, it matters that the width between the flanges is wider. The 135mm hub is still makes for a stronger wheel. And, the tension differential is the same as for that 142mm hub for a disc brake. The disc brake fittings move the hub from a true 142mm hub to something resembling a 135mm hub.

That doesn’t matter. The overriding point is that the 135mm hub has less tension differential between nondrive and drive side spokes. Higher tension on the nondrive side makes for a strong wheel better able to withstand the lateral forces on the wheel.

Since you want a direct comparison, here’s one. Phil Wood Touring hub in 130mm and 135mm. The hub dimensions are below each wheel calculation. The freehub bodies are the same. The flange diameters are the same. The only difference is the OLD.










Notice that the 135mm hub has a lower tension difference between sides than the 130mm hub? The difference is remarkable similar to that of the Shimano comparison I made…in fact the same 10 percentage points difference. To spell it out for you, if you have 100 kgf on the driveside, the tension on the nondrive side of the 130mm hub would be 52kgf while the tension on the nondrive side of the 135mm hub would be 62kgf.

As the old saying goes: quod erat demonstrandum.

Whose information is incorrect, again? You asked for a direct comparison and I gave you one. I look forward to your next Gish Gallop to dig yourself out of the hole you’ve dug.

And, again, are the wheel manufacturers wrong?

cyccommute 

Yes it was. 5 mm is just a bit over 3/16” which ain’t much in terms of springing aluminum or steel. It’s a pain to go that route…removing the wheel is more difficult… but it can be done if necessary.

cyccommute 

And, to be clear, I’m not advocating that you change your hubs over to 135mm unless you have an issue with breaking spokes often. Even then, I would probably suggest going with a 2.3/1.8/2.0mm spoke build rather than change to 135 and/or going to off-center rims. But the same changes made to a 135mm hub would make for an even stronger wheel.

indyfabz

I’m actually starting to miss the days of Hobo and Squeezy.

Yan 

Yes, that's what I said. Thank you for repeating after me. My point was exactly that a longer freehub body results in worse tension differential than shorter freehub body. That's why your comparison between the Shimano road hub and mountain hub was total bullsh*t. You can't take a hub with an inherently favorable freehub standard, and then try to pretend the improvement was due to dropout spacing. Why are you punching yourself in the face? You're sabotaging your own argument! HELLO??? Is this some kind of joke? Why did you just instant uno-reverse your position, take over MY argument, and then try to pretend you were right all along? Are you a psycho gaslighter or what?

This discussion started with a simple and clear premise. I said hub width has less impact than builder skill. You came back and said no no no, hub width is a big deal. Ok, good for you. Agree to disagree. I have wheelbuilding skill, which I understand not everyone has. End of story and we can both move on. Now all of the sudden one day later I have a toddler chasing after me trying to argue over "exactly how many percent is considered significant". Yawn...

You posted some incorrect information due to you lack of knowledge about modern Shimano hub standards, I corrected you. Then since you have no shame you simply moved the goal posts. Yes, the Phil Wood hubs have better tension balance. This is a design decision. As you know the drive side flange position is constrained by the space taken by the cassette; the designer can't do anything there. However the non-drive side flange has freedom to move. If the designer places it closer to the centerline of the hub, then there is a better tension balance. However the trade off is that there is less triangulation in the wheel overall. If spoke tension balance was the end all and be all, then the designer would simply always mirror the two sides. Who cares about having a hilariously skinny spoke triangulation, right? In the other thread you claimed to be a wheelbuilder. So why am I having to explain these extremely basic concepts to you?

Every hub designer has to make a judgement call about flange placement. Who made the better judgement call in this case, Shimano or Phil Wood? The $3 billion annual revenue 13,000 employee corporation with infinite design budget, vs Phil Wood that sells parts a handful at a time? And let's not forget those DT Swiss hubs which have the larger flanges on the non-drive side, which in fact intentionally make the tension imbalance worse, at the benefit of allowing the use of same length spokes on both sides. Do wheels with DT Swiss hubs have a reputation for being weak sh*t? NO! Is DT Swiss stupid in your opinion? I guess a smart man like you must know more than the large design teams at Shimano and DT Swiss. What a renaissance man you are, not just a chemist but also an expert industrial engineer. Big pat on the back for you my old boy!

Again, as I said repeatedly over and over again and I don't know why you're still chasing after me: it is negligible. I can build a bomber wheel on any hub. If you feel your skill level requires a certain hub as a crutch, ok. You go ahead and build on whatever hub is suited to your skill level. Are we done?

Feel free to get the last word, I'm finished with talking to a joke.

djb

and as I think I've mentioned to you before, you'll be the guy I ask opinions for when I look into cartridge bearing hub recommendations.
Hey, do you ever even open the hub and regrease the outer part of the cartridge bearings? I really have zippo experience with cartridge bearings other than in headsets, and they are easy to pull out by hand and clean up and regrease.

Yan 

No. Cartridge bearings are sealed. Theoretically you could pick out the seal and re-grease them, but in practice people simply replace them. With loose bearing hubs if the race become pitted, it's over. With cartridge bearings, the wear surfaces are replaced at the same time as the cartridge, saving the hub shell. Cartridge hubs tend to have very effective sealing and are just less work.

For these reasons I vastly prefer cartridge bearing hubs.

cyccommute 

Not often. I had a Chris King bottom bracket seize up on me. I followed the King instructions and got it cleared. I’ve replaced bearings that were seized…bought a hub with seized bearing for cheap…which is easier than trying clean up the bearing. The replacement bearings are relatively cheap and not that hard to remove and replace.

cyccommute 

Just as I figured. You completely neglected to read what I posted. My comparison of the two Phil Wood hubs illustrated that my comparison on the Shimano road hub and mountain hub was not incorrect. I go very similar results to what I illustrated previously. You asked for a direct comparison and I gave you one which, as per usually, you ignored.



Although I hate to relitigate this mess, I agree that it started with a simple and clear premise. See Doug64’s question.

Again, you seem to have problems understanding the concept of all things being equal. Unless the builder messes up, the build will be the same independent of the components. Assuming all things being equal, the only variables are the dimensions of the hub.

And, yet again, do you disagree with wheel manufacturers? Or with hub makers? Or with competent wheel builders? Or frame builders? Or even Tourist in MSN above?

No, you didn’t correct me because my information was not significantly incorrect. It makes little difference and what little difference it does make is for the worse.

How is that moving the goal posts? You asked for a direct comparison and I gave you one. Your whole discussion about above is meaningless or, at the very least, trivial. The point is that a wider hub give less difference between the drive and nondrive side spoke tension. A narrower hub gives more of a difference. Is that hard to understand?

And you did read the Phil Wood hubs part. It just doesn’t fit your narrative, right?

Yet another Gish Gallop. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. All you are doing is trying to find someway to insult me. I’m not nearly as stupid as you make me out to be.

That’s rich. Go back up and look at the “discussions” we have. I’m not the one doing the chasing. You have always posted something after I have and it is usually of the vein of how stupid I am.

If only…. And you might what to check on who the punchline is.

cyccommute 

Told ya to fasten your seat belt. You were warned.

Tourist in MSN

I have had very good luck with the older Shimano XT steel axle ball bearing hubs. But, before i built up my titanium light touring bike, since I was throwing some money at it I asked a couple mechanics what they thought of a couple of the cartridge bearing hubs for a touring bike. They said they would stick with cup and cone. Easy to work on, last forever if no dirt gets into them, but you might have to add grease and tighten them up on occasion. Their comments mirrored my thoughts too. Thus, I went with the hub I knew, the older steel axle XT hub from before they switched to aluminum, the one that I mentioned and posted the diagram of in post 98 above.

Cartridge bearings do occasionally fail, and when they do you are likely stuck until new bearings can be shipped to you. But just about every bike shop has some quarter inch ball bearings in a parts drawer. (And I have bought new quarter inch ball bearings from a bike shop.)

The bike in the photo below belongs to a guy I know, wheels have cartridge bearings. About 4000 miles after this photo was taken, his rear wheel locked up. I was not there, so I do not know the details, other than what he told me.




Fortunately, it was a van supported trip with ACA, so all he had on the bike was a day worth of food and water, no camping gear. And being a van supported trip he had a ride in the van to a bike shop where he bought a replacement wheel.

He was very clear that the wheel locked up, would not turn. To move the bike he had to pick up the rear wheel off the ground. He did explain that a few days earlier he had a high pitched squeal out of the wheel, a bike shop managed to lube it to get rid of the squeal. I am guessing, but this is only a guess that his cartridge bearing locked up, and was spinning inside the hub shell so the friction between the cartridge and shell caused the squeal. The bike shop lubed it so the squeal stopped, but miles later after the cartridge body was spinning inside the hub shell it eventually welded itself into the hub. I am guessing if he would have swapped out cartridge bearings after the squeal, he would have saved the rest of the hub and wheel, but I was not there, only guessing here. And of course, would have had to get the bearings shipped to a bike shop a day or two further down the road because ACA has a schedule to keep.

I have cartridge bearings in my front wheels on my touring bikes (dynohubs), but in one hub (Shimano) it is cup and cone on one side of the hub. Since touring bikes have a much lighter load on the front wheel, I am not very concerned about that.

And my Rohloff hub has cartridge bearings, but I change the oil in that hub every year, so I am not concerned about that, the bearings are inside the hub where they are always lubed. That is the bike I take if I will be far from help, as that is the most dependable bike I have.

I worked as a bike mechanic years ago, built up my bikes, so a bit of hub maintenance does not bother me. But I can understand why a lot of bike owners would rather buy something that is essentially maintenance free, even if failure might be much more troublesome. Thus, I can understand the desire to use cartridge bearings on a rear hub for the typical bike buyer.

staehpj1

I've never had pitting happen in at least the past 55 years and hundreds of thousands of miles on cup and cone bearings on my bikes and the other bikes that I have maintained. As a kid, I did have some pitted wheel bearings in some old WW2 or older vintage paper boy bikes that lived outdoors, were lubed with motor oil if lubed at all, and were just pretty neglected. Even then, my dad had a trick to get some life out of them. He would put valve grinding compound in the bearing with new balls and manually grind out the pits by spinning the axle. Then he'd clean out all of the abrasive, put in a new set of balls, and repack it. I don't know how efficient the bearings were afterwards, but they felt smooth and seemed to work well enough. I'd use the technique today to restore a vintage bike or something, but am pretty sure I'd never need to on my regular rides. How much I'd advise it might depend on how bad the pitting was. Dad seemed to be able to get any old piece of junk up and running for some more use after it was declared dead whether vehicle, machinery, or whatever.

tcs

Fietsbob, call your office.

cyccommute 

I don’t know how we got off onto bearings but while I agree that cartridge bearings occasionally fail the same can be said of loose bearings and the parts associated with them. Although I hate to agree with the yabbo, cones pit and some of those cones are proprietary. You’ll be waiting for some cones just as you’d be waiting for some cartridge bearings.

There is, however, this idea that cartridge bearings are scarce and special. Most of them are not. You can get a number of cartridge bearings for bicycle wheels from auto parts stores. The bearings are used commonly in automotive applications and are readily available.

And, while we can all find examples of something failing, there are far more boring old stories about something that didn’t fail…cartridge or loose bearing.