Classic & Vintage - 126mm Spacing: When did it start/When did it end?

As the title suggests, I was wondering the time range when it fell into and then out of favor? I was thinking 1976 (on higher end frames) and 1995 to the lower end?

I thought it was more like 1979-1980. Perhaps it was earlier on higher end bikes as you suggest.


My 1977 Schwinn Volare is 120mm (actually measures 122mm)

My 1981 Schwinn Voyageur 11.8 is 126mm.

My 1988 Schwinn Voyageur was spec'd with a 3x6 drivetrain. I haven't measured the spacing but a 130mm hub slides with ease (long chain stays).

My 1990 Paramount was spec'd with 128.5mm spacing per the catalog (and that's what it measured) presumably so you could use 126mm or 130mm easily.

My '78 Team Champion is 126, so by then even the French had caught on.

I got a set of wheels with my Frejus which I could have sworn were older, mixed Normandy and Mailliard hubs laced to Super Champion and Rigida (no hook) 27 x 1/14 inch rims respectfully, and the rear turned out to be 126, which surprised me. Which reminds me, I need a 120 axle and spacers for that Mailliard if anyone can help out. I thought the wheels must have been older than 78, but maybe not.

My 1964 JRJ has 126mm spacing. I doubt it was cold set, but you never know. It also has braze-ons that were not typical for the time, but I understand they were offered as options from the builder.

79 and 85 trek. both with 126.

My 1964 JRJ has 126mm spacing. I doubt it was cold set, but you never know. It also has braze-ons that were not typical for the time, but I understand they were offered as options from the builder.

This I find surprising if it's original. When did 6 speed freewheels come into the universe? I thought later but what do I know?

From the bikes I have owned, 120mm until about 72/73, 126mm until about 93 or so.

Really? So 126 came in as early as 74? That surprises me but my old French wheels may corroborate.

As the title suggests, I was wondering the time range when it fell into and then out of favor? I was thinking 1976 (on higher end frames) and 1995 to the lower end?

If this is related to the Mondia, stop asking questions, coldset the drops and install that IGH. It'll make for a fun project. ;)

As far as 126mm spacing, I have no idea. I only know of one bicycle in my collection that has 126mm spacing - my 1985 Schwinn World Sport.

'75 Wizard, 126 mm; '75 Eisentraut Limited 120 mm; '79 Olmo Grand Prix 124 mm; '89 Landshark 126 mm; '91 Landshark 126 mm

I have not measured my '78 Colnago Super or '85 Colnago Junior. I will when I am at their respective homes and report back.

Those guys in the Olmo shop wanted to be different that day :)

QC.....Maybe not! They were a precursor to the current Surly spacing of in between.

Which reminds me, I need a 120 axle and spacers for that Mailliard if anyone can help out. I thought the wheels must have been older than 78, but maybe not.

Sorry, I don't have anything in response to the OP that hasn't already been comprehended above, but I believe somewhere I have a 120mm Atom Normandy axle, if that is compatible. If you think it might be, I'll dig it out and take some dimensions.

Didn't the 1970 Raleigh Pro come with one of the earliest 6-speed freewheels?

My 1977 Sabatini is 120mm and I checked a 1981 ( might be 1982 ) Rocky Mountain road frame and it was also 120mm. I really think that as the supply of 120mm hubs and 5 speed freewheels were plentiful for a few years not all builders were in a hurry to change when 126mm was establishing itself.

My brothers 73ish Takara 10 speed is 126.

My brothers 73ish Takara 10 speed is 126.

If it is (or was) a 10 speed then it was surely 120mm originally.

Didn't the 1970 Raleigh Pro come with one of the earliest 6-speed freewheels?

I don't know. The retro raleighs 1970 catalog is incomplete. 1972 doesn't specify no. of cogs, but 1973 says 6 speed.

My 1990 Paramount was spec'd with 128.5mm spacing per the catalog (and that's what it measured) presumably so you could use 126mm or 130mm easily.

i think my yokota is an 89 and it was 126. it is probably 128 now. my dad put a 130mm hub in it in the early 90s and it hasent had a 126mm hub since.

i think my yokota is an 89 and it was 126. it is probably 128 now. my dad put a 130mm hub in it in the early 90s and it hasent had a 126mm hub since.

Then it's probably still 126mm. You have to spread the steel stays well beyond 2mm to change the spacing.

Regina made 6 speed freewheels in the 60's, but only a 13t top cog as the smallest.
The adoption of 6 speed freewheels in the pro peloton goes back to about 1970.
There was resistance, as the extra dish was known to make a weaker wheel and bending of rear axles was more common. I want to say by the Worlds in Montreal that 6 was necessary for the pros.
Local racers in SoCal were moving to 6 in back in the middle 70's. Looking for that 13t cog without sacrifice of a cog in the middle. John Howard in an interview in Competitive Cycling in '73 or '74 advised that 52t rings and 14t cogs just don't cut it. I forget the exact quote, but it gave permission to go big and plenty.
I think it was 1976 that Suntour introduced the New Winner with close cog spacing, that allowed 6 in 122 mm and 7 in 127-8 mm for most frames and hubs.
There were a few 120 mm wide frames where a 6 would not work even when spaced to 126. The stays were not relieved inside and the cog or chain would hang up.

In short, the parts were ready before the demand was there. In the mid 80's we knew 8 was coming, just as soon as Shimano or someone else went freehub, which basically solved the axle stress problem. With a typical freewheel & hub the 8 block just placed too much force on the hub bearing that was now almost in the center of the dropouts.

I don't know. The retro raleighs 1970 catalog is incomplete. 1972 doesn't specify no. of cogs, but 1973 says 6 speed.

Raleigh interestingly was an early adopter of 6 in back as a "production" builder, even if just for the top end bikes. The type of rider on these bikes often had problems, bending axles, the rider's just did not have finesse, and did not raise their weight off the saddle just before and during a visible bump in the road. We retrograded many a Pro for these big customers, improving the dish, degrading the chain line, and providing a stronger wheel with better axle loading.

Then it's probably still 126mm. You have to spread the steel stays well beyond 2mm to change the spacing.

maybe it was 128mm to begin with then. a 130mm wheels slides in this frame much better than other 126mm frames ive had.

maybe it was 128mm to begin with then. a 130mm wheels slides in this frame much better than other 126mm frames ive had.

Given the year, that's plausible.

Given the year, that's plausible.

it measures almost exactly 128mm and came with 7spd. my dad told me it was 126 but he may have never checked.

Colonel, was your World Voyageur 126mm? I had onr that was stock IIRC it was about 126. That would be about 1973..

My Trek 616 came stock with 126 mm; after the car crash in October I respaced it to 132.5. My 560 came stock with 130mm. So for Trek, at least, the switch came sometime between '81 and '87.

Colonel, was your World Voyageur 126mm? I had onr that was stock IIRC it was about 126. That would be about 1973..

123.7mm

I have an 82 Mercian with 120mm spacing. Different builders started using at different times so it is hard to tell. I believe that 130mm spacing came about in the early 90's when 8 speed became available.

This I find surprising if it's original. When did 6 speed freewheels come into the universe? I thought later but what do I know?

It is a surprising bike. I thought it was a 70's bike when I bought it, but the Bob Jackson workshop dated it to 1964. The original owner really splurged on all the braze on and detail options. It's my understanding that 6 speed freewheels were around but rare in the 60's, I'm assuming the original owner went this route.

This I find surprising if it's original. When did 6 speed freewheels come into the universe? I thought later but what do I know?

I believe this question came up on the CR list awhile back. Six speed did appear in the early 60s.

It wasn't common until about 1980 or so. And it wasn't the only size you would see by 1982. My McLean started out at 120, and I had it cold set to 126 a few years later.

6-speed freewheels with axle spacing for 126mm were already available in the late '60s and coexisted with 5-speed freewheels with 120mm spacing through the '70s. So during that period frames can be found with either spacing. By the end the cog spacing had gotten narrower and many of the 120mm hubs could take the narrow 6-speed freewheels and the 126mm ones could go to 7-speed.

Just acquired an 84 Nishiki steel touring frame measuring 123mm. Already had an 83 Nishiki touring frame measuring 126. Been seeing a lot of 80-84 Nishikis both ways.

I see Nishiki offered Gran Tour 15 in 1982 - 15 speeds. In the 1983 catalog, they offered the all new 18-speed Continental. The Seral I have seems to be a slightly later (84 model Continental, maybe) with canti brakes.

If it is (or was) a 10 speed then it was surely 120mm originally.
Nope.
He bought it new-
I'm the only one that's ever worked on it besides him (RIP) and he wasn't into servicing bearings, let alone re-spacing dropouts.
This last year I turned it into a 21 speed flat bar bike and gave to my friends son.

I'm learning here. I remember the advertising blitz Fuji did about 12-speed bikes. Everyone thought it was their innovation. Now I'm learning it wasn't. I guess they were the first to mass market it? I think it was in 1978 or 1979.

This I find surprising if it's original. When did 6 speed freewheels come into the universe? I thought later but what do I know?


There were six-speed freewheels by about 1960 or so, but they were not even close to commonly used.

Raleigh was a high-volume manufacturer that was an 'early adopter' of 126 spacing on the top-level models. They started doing that around 1972.

I would generally agree with vjp's dates of about 1972-1993 for 126 spacing's dominance in the marketplace.

Raleigh interestingly was an early adopter of 6 in back as a "production" builder, even if just for the top end bikes. The type of rider on these bikes often had problems, bending axles, the rider's just did not have finesse, and did not raise their weight off the saddle just before and during a visible bump in the road. We retrograded many a Pro for these big customers, improving the dish, degrading the chain line, and providing a stronger wheel with better axle loading.

Actually, you didn't affect the chainline by dropping from 126 to 120 on the rear hub, because you also went from six cogs to five (of the same cog spacing). Do the math if you don't believe me....

My Trek 616 came stock with 126 mm; after the car crash in October I respaced it to 132.5. My 560 came stock with 130mm. So for Trek, at least, the switch came sometime between '81 and '87.

We all need to keep in mind that most manufacturers didn't suddenly stop using 120 on every road model, and then go with 126 on everything the next day. Different bike models had reasons to go to 126 rear spacing (or not). Specialized even built some bikes that used five-speed freewheels on 126 spacing, just to get less dish, iirc. Spacings co-existed for (often) many years after the wider one was introduced. As others have noted, some builders chose to build half-way there for a while (128 mm spacing when 126 and 130 were the norm, for example...).

This thread really got my attention. After considering the concern, I went through my records and guess what? I got a bit of a surprise.

Though I never thought about the five and six cog time-line thing before, I was surprised to find that, of all the bicycles I have been lucky enough to own, only one from the seventies sported a six cog freewheel, my 1978 Motobecane Grand Jubilee (http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpeeds_1/Feature_Bicycles/Feature_Bicycles_France/Motobecane_Gran_Jubilee/MOTOBECANE_GRAND_JUBILEE_1_Start.htm)...
http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpeeds_1/Bicycles_Table/French_Bicycles/Motobecane_Bicycles/Motobecane_Gran_Jubilee_57/Motobecane_GJ_57_Built/MotoBe_GJ_57_Built_Derailleur_R_1.jpg


Needless to say, nothing I have, or have had, from the sixties or fifties, or forties for that matter, had more than five cogs. For some reason, I always thought that the six cog thing started much earlier than it would appear.

Good thread!

I seem to remember that SunTour (Maeda) had a 6-speed freewheel that fit in the space of a 5-speed, but used a non-standard chain as the cog spacing was narrower than standard. Technological dead end, however. Have to go on reports, however, as Erie was enough of a cycling backwater that I never saw anything more than a 5-speed rear thru the end of the '76 cycling season. And, as Merle (the owner) wasn't interested in carrying high end Raleighs, we never had anything 6-speed at the shop.

^ They're called Ultra spaced freewheels. I use one. They also made a 7 speed Ultra.

Needless to say, nothing I have, or have had, from the sixties or fifties, or forties for that matter, had more than five cogs. For some reason, I always thought that the six cog thing started much earlier than it would appear.

It did, you just don't have a bike that shows it.

I'm learning here. I remember the advertising blitz Fuji did about 12-speed bikes. Everyone thought it was their innovation. Now I'm learning it wasn't. I guess they were the first to mass market it? I think it was in 1978 or 1979.

My 82 Team Fuji actually has a sticker on the drive side chainstay bragging "12 Speed". I get a lot of guff for that from riders of modern bikes.

This topic interests me because everyone says on a 126mm hub you should be able to fit a 7-speed freewheel, but I've tried on my bike and the locknut doesn't even clear the end of the freewheel, let alone leave enough room for the chain (and my 6-speed fw is not an Ultra fw, just a standard Shimano). I'm wondering if my hub / dropout is one of these oddball widths, but I'm too lazy to get the bike down from its winter hibernation spot and measure it.

+1 to early 1960s for 6 cog freewheels. The 1961 revision to the spring cover of the Gran Sport rear derailleur was to facilitate use with 6 cogs. The 1961 Sportsman rear derailleur was 6 cog compatible, as was the 1963 Record rear derailleur. The first specific mentionof 6 speed compatible hubs in the Campagnolo catalogs was 1969, so they they were probably starting to go mainstream on high end models around then.

I recently picked up an 81 fuji frame (gran touring SE) that says 12 speed on the chainstay, but the spacing is 119 mm to my calipers. Don't know if that just means it got bent in at some point or if it was designed for the narrower 6 speed cogs or what.

...This topic interests me because everyone says on a 126mm hub you should be able to fit a 7-speed freewheel, but I've tried on my bike and the locknut doesn't even clear the end of the freewheel, let alone leave enough room for the chain (and my 6-speed fw is not an Ultra fw, just a standard Shimano). I'm wondering if my hub / dropout is one of these oddball widths, but I'm too lazy to get the bike down from its winter hibernation spot and measure it.

Contrary to popular belief a narrow 7 spped freewheel is actually about 1.5mm wider than a standard spaced 6 speed. That's enough to cause problems in some situations but can usually be rectified by adding a washer to the axle and re-centering the hardware on the axle for equal axle end protrusion.

Also, the critical dimension is the distance from the end of the locknut to the freewheel seat on the hub shell. This dimension is not standard on all 126mm hubs. In order to accommodate a 7 speed, this dimension should be approximately 36mm, but some hubs used as low as 31mm in order to decrease the wheel dish and/or permit compatibility with derailleurs that could not sweep 36mm.

Things also get complicated when frame manufacturers decide to cut costs. Many used 126mm spacing with 5 speed or narrow 6 speed freewheels. This practice saved them the cost of having to relieve the inside faces of the stays to clear the chain and cogs. An owner will think they can run an extra cog because of the 126mm dimension between locknuts, but the chain of cogs will contact the stays.

Also, the critical dimension is the distance from the end of the locknut to the freewheel seat on the hub shell. This dimension is not standard on all 126mm hubs. In order to accommodate a 7 speed, this dimension should be approximately 36mm, but some hubs used as low as 31mm in order to decrease the wheel dish and/or permit compatibility with derailleurs that could not sweep 36mm.

Thanks T-Mar, that makes sense. On freehub wheels things have to be standard (okay, one of two standards) but I can see where freewheel hubs were a lot more varied. I guess a stronger wheel is a good trade-off for one less cog.