Bamicus

I got an axle and race from a member. I need to get loose bearings for the drive side. Would you know the size, and where to get them?

1 Lugnut

The diagram below was posted early-on in this lengthy thread. Shows the ball/bearing size(s) needed for the hub...

When I recently disassembled one of my cassette hubs to exchange freehubs, I had no idea that the ball-bearings were different sizes for each side of the hub!
So, when they came out, I mixed them all together. Took me 1/2 day to sort it all out as I could not get the freehub to seat properly w/ the bearings all mixed up...doh!
I did find the info needed to get it right, either here or on a YT vid...

gfk_velo

Ah, great, glad you got sorted.
I'll likely order some cones as EAI seem to be the only people in the world with stock and we get asked from time to time - I have a few wheelsets with these older pattern hubs, too ...

Any good quality ball-bearings will do the job, I'd advise checking with a local industrial supplier. Just make sure that you buy decent grade balls - the higher the grading number, the poorer the quality. For something like this, I'd go with Grade 25, i.e. accurate to 25/1000000" which is the grade that Campagnolo routinely use. It's probably more accurate than the ball races / cones ... but the marginal cost of more accuracy than you need is not significant.

Bamicus

Does anyone know, if my cone says “camp 10 26, that would be the correct cone size for campy 8 speed non drive side cone? Thanks

gfk_velo

Please note - as I said in my post on ballbearings, they are not consistent for size in every year / model.
"some hubs are 1/4", some 7/32" depending on age. NGS balls are conventional 1/4".

Campag had a couple of running changes.

I forgot to say, on the subject of sourcing balls - any bearing factor will be able to sell them to you - typically you are buying in 100s or 500s but some factors have aheart and will let you just have what you need - the value of face-to-face. The guys I use here in the UK are great, they pander all the time to what they see as my strange whims for strangely sizes and profiled sealed bearings and small quantities (for them) of loose balls.

gfk_velo

Usually if they are marked at all, the cones are marked on the flat face that the tag washer / spacer or locknut tightens down against.Generally it's a manufacturing date, not an identifier as such.
If the cone is threaded 10mm x 26TPI (i.e. it runs down the axle threads cleanly) then it'll have the correct curvature for 1/4" balls. The depths of the various rear cones used across models and generations of hubs with threaded axles, track and road have all had the same curvature - in most cases, the depth of the cone, if it's too shallow, can be compensated for with a spacer. There are occasional difficulties in getting a cone spanner onto the "flats" if the cone is very, very shallow because sometimes the dust cover over the balls gets in the way - however, by not pressing the dust cover into place, you can usually access the flats and get the hub adjusted anyway. It can be a bit tricky but I don't think I've seen an instance where it couldn't be done.

uanlov

Hi all, I have a problem with the bearing in the freehub body. It´s completely stuck, the hub turns quite nicely, but the cassette body is pretty much bonded with the axle. Are those bearings replaceable? If so, what is the size? I believe my hub is an 8-speed mirage. Thanks a lot for any advice.

1 Lugnut

https://www.bikeforums.net/21914781-post30.html

Not sure if bearing size for an 8-sp Mirage hub is the same as a Chorus hub? Did you try soaking the frozen bearings/axle w/ WD-40, liquid wrench or penetrating fluid?

Referring to Hub Bearing size in pic, I’d think they’d be one in the same? Others may have more definitive answers...

uanlov

hi, thanks, yes I tried soaking.. no success. The bearing doesn´t even move anymore...

Bamicus

Is it possible to use a campy 11 speed crankset with my older 8 speed chorus group, or would the chain not work? Need compact cranks.

uanlov

yes, a larger chain on narrower teeth works fine, you would have problems if you try using a 11s chain on a 8 speed cassette, but not the other way around. Maybe the shifting between the two chainrings is not going to be supersmooth, but it should work fine.

Bamicus

Can I install new Campy cups, and torque bb on my Italian Colnago if the bb size is 70mm?

uanlov

Hambini suggests that a shell should measure between 67.9 to 68.1mm (it´s that sensitive) to have a perfect fit with the Campa preload... My Tommasini´s BB (ITA with 2017 Chorus 11s) is about 69,5mm and still works fine after 25.000 km, so I guess 70mm should work too, in principle. but you can also grind it down to the suggested measurement if you have the proper tool?

Bamicus

Thanks you again.

Bamicus

Hambini is an interesting guy? You think he’s real, or full of it?

uanlov

I don't like his politics, neither his style, but he definitely understands bottom brackets.

gfk_velo

It's unfortunate that he finds it necessary to present the way he does.
A lot of what he says is well considered in it's content and it's great having someone calling the cycle industry to account when it does things badly or is fundamentally innaccurate with some of the claims it makes. His piece on low-speed aerodynamics of wheels, for instance, is spot on (language notwithstanding). He'd probably get a lot more traction if he'd dial in the language and some of the other unfortunate references he's made.

The Campag spec for UT (and PT for that matter) is 68.0mm +/-0.8mm (70mm for Italian) but as always, with any system, the closer you can get to the mid-point of any dimensional tolerance, the better the system will work - in the case of UT / PT, at either "end" of the tolerance range, the preload is marginal against the specification, as you'd expect - defining the range for that pre-load is part of what the dimensional spec is "for".

Bear in mind, H wants to sell you one of his BB units. I think his quoted +/- 0.1mm spec is justified in that yes, it'll give you close to perfect performance - but if you are mounting a BB "normally" the wider, factory spec is adequate. I've certainly mounted many hundred (probably, by now, thousands of) UT and PT brackets within that spec in the last 14 or 15 years and seen no problems.

For BB machining, there are tools that will chase the BB threads so that they are concentric and parallel and that allows a facing tool that uses those threads to position itself, to be used to face the BB shell at 90 deg to the threads and so, in theory, perfectly parallel which is the key thing with all outboard-type BB systems. In fact. it's the key thing with all ball-bearing systems, full stop ... but in the case of bottom brackets, some older square taper systems based on a cartridge unit were more tolerant of errors in thread concentricity and BB shell face defects than others.

The tool for the BB face is a facing cutter, mounted in a very accurately-made stock - so not a grinder as such.

Bamicus

Many, many people on YouTube are selling stuff. A proposed cycling coach has the worst pedaling stroke I’ve ever seen, and he’s selling his coaching? It’s the climate we live in to denigrate. Excuse my ignorance, what is UT, PT?
I ride an old steel Colnago with square taper Chorus BB. All bikes in that era had to be faced in BB, and head tube, as you know. I looking to upgrade to compact gearing, so that may change soon. My all Chorus bike just keeps going. Difficult for me to even consider anything else. Appreciate your comments.

gfk_velo

You are right - my significant other and I were discussing, just today, the way that conversation on many forums (but seemingly, especially Facebook and Twitter) rapidly degenerates into a derogatory shouting match from behind the safery of a computer keyboard - or maybe that's just the way too many people speak to one another in person these day? I don't know but I don't like it!

You are right about selling, too - part of the reason that I am active on the forums is to help Campagnolo customers, of course - but as Campagnolo don't pay me to do what I do in respect of customer support on the forums (I do it partly because I am fairly sure, that in the long term, it can save me some work), it's always nice if someone asks if we can supply something or books onto a technical course, as result of reading a post ...

No ignorance on your part, bad habit on mine, to abbreviate, as I spend so much time typing too and fro with my colleagues in Italy and we have standard shorthand that we all use - PT= PowerTorque, UT=UltraTorque.

If your frames are already chased and faced both sides, then a normal UltraTorque or PowerTorque system chainset and bottom bracket assembly will slot straight in. Just check the face-to-face dimensions of the BB shell are within the +/- 0.8mm tolerance that Campagnolo give for threaded cups.If they are, you'll be fine and as I mentioned above, the closer your BB is to nominal, the easier / better the whole thing will work.

A lot of BB shells for the old square taper BBs are only faced on the drive side (since the non drive side cup doesn't require a frame face to tighten against), so you may need to get the non-drive side of your frame attended to. Best to make the shop doing the work aware of the minimum BB width they can skim down to. Most will know, of course, esp. as Shimano have the same spec.

Bamicus

Thank you very much, I do knowthe difference between UT, and PT! Should I have my bike refaced, or checked? I do my own repairs, but don’t have that tool. Is Ut stiffer than PT, or do you have a preference? Thanks again!

gfk_velo

I'd have it checked. If it's been faced before and there's no paint on the BB faces, though, you should be food to go.
BB axle stiffness - hard to say for sure - materials make a big difference and UT and PT use different axle materials. In theory a Hirth joint might reduce torsional rigidity in the axle itself, as would any joint but that depends on what the axle material is and how the material is used. That needs to be balanced against any lack of rigidity in the crank to axle junction, for instance, I've never seen any reduction in the stiffness of UT (if there is any compared to any other system) noted as an issue by any credible source. Once you get beyond a certain point, it's not a significant factor. Yes, a hollow large diameter axle is stiffer than a hollow small diameter axle, using more material - so in terms of torsional rigidity as a function of weight, it's a better solution - but it's not the only reason for looking at an outboard BB solution.

Bamicus

Thanks again! Your knowledge is invaluable.

gfk_velo

My pleasure!
I must have been hungry when I typed my reply ... "food to go" ... LoL

Bamicus

Finally got a compact crankset, installed and rode today. Really great, went back to 172.5 from 175, even better, much better acceleration. It’s a C7 11, a little tight on small ring chain, but it works. Anyone know if I can run a 9 speed chain on 8 speed cogs? Thanks for all the help! I did get the BB faced.

SJX426 

Thanks to all the contributors to the disassembly and assembly of the 8v hub!
I have a Record version that I really wanted to convert to 9v. @El Heron provided just the 9v cassette hub.
Based on my research, everbody said it would not work. The parts appear to be interchangeable. I used the springs and palls from the 8V. Aside from the springs appear to be of different length. it went together just fine. What am I missing?
The 9v hub has a grub screw on it that I did not use.
8v:
P1050240 on Flickr
9v:
P1050242 on Flickr