Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

Bearing retainers vs Loose bearings

Notices
Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

Bearing retainers vs Loose bearings

Old 09-04-07, 08:26 PM
  #26  
Mr. Dopolina
 
Bob Dopolina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,217

Bikes: KUUPAS, Simpson VR

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked 117 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by well biked
I'm wondering if it doesn't have a lot to do with the design of the specific retainer. Scientific or not, there's an awful lot of anecdotal evidence that tossing the retainer on the average old headset or cup and cone bottom bracket and repacking with loose balls is an improvement in most every way (except ease of assembly). Heck, if I can see, feel and even hear the difference just by spinning the part, that's pretty strong evidence as far as I'm concerned.

But, for instance, Bob, what the heck is a "resign" retainer? See, I think when we're talking about these Dura Ace and Campy hubs with retainers, we may be talking about a whole 'nuther animal than the average old headset or bottom bracket as far as the actual retainers. I know that in industrial applications, too, there are specially engineered retainers that are there to increase performance and service life of the bearing assembly, and I'm wondering if the retainers on these quality hubs aren't more like that than the old retainers most of us think of when we're talking about retainers on bicycles.

This is just a thought, though, because I've never even knowingly seen a bicycle hub with bearing retainers in it, so maybe the retainers in these hubs aren't all that different than the retainers in a $15 headset. So what are the retainers like in these quality hubs?
Sorry, Resin.

I think, in a headset, loose bearings make sense. The headset isn't spinning around like a hub or BB. A different application so I think a different set of considerations apply.

The Campagnolo retainers or a very soft material that is flexible. I'm certain that it couldn't possible add wear to a bearing. Haven't seen a DA one in a while so I can't comment here.
Bob Dopolina is offline  
Old 09-04-07, 08:31 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
well biked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 89 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Dopolina
The Campagnolo retainers or a very soft material that is flexible. I'm certain that it couldn't possible add wear to a bearing.
That's funny about the "resign" retainers, you had me really wondering. But seriously, since you say the retainers in the Campy hubs are flexible, that right there is a significant difference from the typical retainers most of us think of regarding bikes, the ones that seem to be more or less made of tin-
well biked is offline  
Old 09-05-07, 04:01 AM
  #28  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
kleng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Perth, Australia and sometimes Penang Malaysia
Posts: 1,916

Bikes: Litespeed L1r, Litespeed Ghisallo 07, TCR Advanced Team SL 0 ISP, Giant TCR Advanced SL, Giant TCR Advanced Team - T-Mobile, Giant Propel Advanced SL

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by well biked
That's funny about the "resign" retainers, you had me really wondering. But seriously, since you say the retainers in the Campy hubs are flexible, that right there is a significant difference from the typical retainers most of us think of regarding bikes, the ones that seem to be more or less made of tin-
The Shimano Dura-ace ones are plastic and flexible as well, there is not much to them, its more like a netting to hold the bearings, nothing like the tin version
kleng is offline  
Old 09-05-07, 04:32 AM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656

Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!

Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,095 Times in 741 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Dopolina
I think, in a headset, loose bearings make sense. The headset isn't spinning around like a hub or BB. A different application so I think a different set of considerations apply.
That's right, headsets are a very different mechanical situation and much more static so the larger the number of contact points to distribute the load, the better.

Originally Posted by Bob Dopolina
The Campagnolo retainers or a very soft material that is flexible. I'm certain that it couldn't possible add wear to a bearing. Haven't seen a DA one in a while so I can't comment here.
I'm glad this came up since I haven't had my new Campy hubs apart yet and I would have expected the old-type metal retainers. It's nice to know what to look for.
HillRider is offline  
Old 09-05-07, 07:48 AM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
well biked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 89 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Dopolina
I think, in a headset, loose bearings make sense. The headset isn't spinning around like a hub or BB. A different application so I think a different set of considerations apply.

Certainly the most noticeable place you can improve your situtation by tossing a cheap retainer is a headset, but I mentioned old cup and cone bottom brackets as well. Granted, unless you're doing a restoration, it makes more sense these days to simply replace an old bb like that with a cartridge unit. But since we're talking "theory" here, I do wonder what the real differences are in terms of performance and durability, with caged vs. loose balls, in something like an old cup and cone bottom bracket with one of the old "tin" cages. Or for that matter, what the differences would be if you used "tin" cages in a hub, vs. loose balls.

My experience has been that an old bottom bracket at least seems smoother with loose balls, and it also makes sense that the most important part of the unit, the cups, would last longer with the load spread out over more area as with loose balls. This is definitely the case with headsets, but again, I'm thinking it probably is still best to use loose balls vs. cages no matter where on the bike you're talking about, if the cages are the cheap tin type. Otherwise, why would any manufacturer have EVER used loose balls in hubs? Seems to me it would be cheaper to manufacture the hubs with caged balls, and if the performance is actually better with caged balls, there would be no reason whatsoever to EVER use loose balls. Again, I think it's likely that the key factor with these quality hubs (Campy, Dura-Ace) is the type of cages they're using-

Last edited by well biked; 09-05-07 at 08:13 AM.
well biked is offline  
Old 09-05-07, 08:11 AM
  #31  
Elitist Troglodyte
 
DMF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,925

Bikes: 03 Raleigh Professional (steel)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by operator
Which is the exact reason why you don't mix and match and use all bearings from teh same batch
True. Yet even within the same batch there are variations. All you can do it keep them to a minimum.
__________________
Stupidity got us into this mess - why can't it get us out?

- Will Rogers
DMF is offline  
Old 09-05-07, 08:24 AM
  #32  
Elitist Troglodyte
 
DMF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,925

Bikes: 03 Raleigh Professional (steel)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by well biked
the most important part of the unit, the cups, would last longer with the load spread out over more area as with loose balls.
If ball-to-ball friction produces residue, that would effect the cups too.

Seems to me that in a radial bearing peak load occurs on one ball at a time, and that having the balls closer together does not reduce peak load, but reduces the time that load is applied. If degradation phenomena such as micro-welding are primarily a function of load rather than time, cup degradation should be unaffected by relatively small differences in ball count.
__________________
Stupidity got us into this mess - why can't it get us out?

- Will Rogers

Last edited by DMF; 09-05-07 at 09:03 AM.
DMF is offline  
Old 09-05-07, 08:52 AM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
well biked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 89 Posts
Originally Posted by DMF
If ball-to-ball friction produces residue, that would effect the cups too.

Seems to me that peak load occurs on one ball at a time, and that having the balls closer together does not reduce peak load, but reduces the time that load is applied. If degradation phenomena such as micro-welding are primarily a function of load rather than time, cup degradation should be unaffected by relatively small differences in ball count.

I can tell you that a headset with loose balls will most definitely last longer than a headset with caged balls, all other things being equal. Headsets are different than hubs/bottom brackets, yes. But it's interesting that on older, quality bikes, before cartridge bearing bb's and the like, the places that caged balls were commonly used are also the most difficult and time consuming places to pack loose balls: the headset and bottom bracket. I think it was to reduce assembly time, nothing more. Quality hubs always used loose balls.

Now with these "higher tech" cages that are being used with Dura Ace hubs, etc., it seems likely that the benefits you mention can be put to use without the drawbacks of cheap retainers. To be clear, I have no scientific evidence of this of course, it's all speculation on my part, but after packing a lot of ball bearing assemblies over the years on bicycles, there's no way I'll be convinced that an assembly with a cheap "tin" cage as a retainer will spin with less friction than an assembly with loose balls. I'll concede that the durability issue may be a wash with something like a cup and cone bottom bracket, because a quality bottom bracket has very durable cups, likely to last a very long time regardless. But you can see, feel, and even hear the difference in terms of smooth operation-

Last edited by well biked; 09-05-07 at 09:14 AM.
well biked is offline  
Old 09-05-07, 09:04 AM
  #34  
Elitist Troglodyte
 
DMF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,925

Bikes: 03 Raleigh Professional (steel)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Agree on headsets. I was talking about a radial bearing (where the load is perpendicular to the axis of rotation) and amended my post to be clearer.
__________________
Stupidity got us into this mess - why can't it get us out?

- Will Rogers
DMF is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 07:09 AM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
well biked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 89 Posts
To further add to the confusion, I just checked Shimano's website and looked at the exploded view of the Dura Ace hubs, front and rear. The front is apparently available with two types of bearing assemblies, an A type or a B type. The A type uses loose balls, the B type uses the retainers. On the rear hubs, it's loose balls only, no "B type" available. It sounds like kleng's Dura Ace front hub is an A type (w/loose balls from the factory), and that's why there were loose balls in it-

Last edited by well biked; 09-06-07 at 07:33 AM.
well biked is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 07:33 AM
  #36  
A little North of Hell
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by well biked
To further add to the confusion, I just checked Shimano's website and looked at the exploded view of the Dura Ace hubs, front and rear. The front is apparently available with two types of bearing assemblies, an A type or a B type. The A type uses loose balls, the B type uses the retainers. On the rear hubs, it's loose balls only, no "B type" available. It sounds like maybe kleng's Dura Ace front hub is an A type (w/loose balls from the factory), and that's why there were loose balls in it-
Originally Posted by kleng
I spoke to Shimano tech about my strange hub, and they said that there have not been any complete wheelsets in the Dura-ace range since 2005 that used or uses loose bearings. They said that factory quality control would prevent the wheelset leaving the factory without bearing retainers, so they think Giant in Australia or the LBS might have modified them.
His hub is on a 7801 wheelset.
Soil_Sampler is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 07:41 AM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
well biked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 89 Posts
Originally Posted by Soil_Sampler
His hub is on a 7801 wheelset.
Ah, I didn't catch that, thanks-
well biked is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 08:24 AM
  #38  
Charles
 
cpb406's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Check out this web page.

https://www.bardenbearings.co.uk/index.cfm?articleid=635

Basically it says the load carrying abililty is greater without the retainer but "With the retainer removed from the bearing the balls are no longer spaced apart and can make contact with each other. With the inner ring acting as a sun gear each ball is driven in the same clockwise direction. At the points of contact the balls are travelling in opposing directions leading to friction and wear. Due to the introduction of ball to ball friction the bearing torque is also increased. The use of ceramic balls can provide lower wear levels and reduced bearing friction/torque."
cpb406 is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 08:36 AM
  #39  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,138

Bikes: 2 many

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1266 Post(s)
Liked 323 Times in 169 Posts
Originally Posted by DMF

When loaded balls contact each other, there is much more friction than ball to (unloaded) carrier contact. a) the loaded balls can't easily move apart, b) the contact velocity is double that of ball to carrier.

If there is a slight size difference in the balls, they will tend to bunch behind the smaller ball and eat energy.
I guess nobody read this. That would be a reason to only use carriers in dura-ace. It's less friction
2manybikes is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 08:42 AM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
well biked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 89 Posts
Originally Posted by cpb406
Check out this web page.

https://www.bardenbearings.co.uk/index.cfm?articleid=635

Basically it says the load carrying abililty is greater without the retainer but "With the retainer removed from the bearing the balls are no longer spaced apart and can make contact with each other. With the inner ring acting as a sun gear each ball is driven in the same clockwise direction. At the points of contact the balls are travelling in opposing directions leading to friction and wear. Due to the introduction of ball to ball friction the bearing torque is also increased. The use of ceramic balls can provide lower wear levels and reduced bearing friction/torque."
That's interesting. It seems the primary purpose of their design, which is without a retainer, is to increase the carrying capacity of the bearing, whether axial or radial, and they acknowledge there is increased friction and torque because of the removal of the retainer. But I still say, in regard to reducing friction/torque, that it would greatly depend on the design of the retainer, too, because the typical "tin" retainers found in bicycle bearings don't strike me as being very well engineered for reducing friction. I'd bet the retainers in the Dura Ace and Campy hubs are actually designed to do some good regarding performance, and aren't just there to speed up assembly-
well biked is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 08:58 AM
  #41  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656

Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!

Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,095 Times in 741 Posts
Originally Posted by cpb406
Check out this web page.

https://www.bardenbearings.co.uk/index.cfm?articleid=635

Basically it says the load carrying abililty is greater without the retainer but "With the retainer removed from the bearing the balls are no longer spaced apart and can make contact with each other. With the inner ring acting as a sun gear each ball is driven in the same clockwise direction. At the points of contact the balls are travelling in opposing directions leading to friction and wear. Due to the introduction of ball to ball friction the bearing torque is also increased. The use of ceramic balls can provide lower wear levels and reduced bearing friction/torque."
Even if this is theoretically correct, it's still an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" type of argument.

Loose ball hubs, properly lubed and adjusted, have such a small amount of rolling resistance that any "improvement" is almost unmeasurable. Also, properly adjusted hubs show almost no wear of either the cones, races or balls for thousand and thousands of miles. I have a set of older 9-speed Dura Ace loose ball hubs with 45,000 miles on the original cones and races and they are overhauled only every 5000 to 6000 miles. Obviously the "wear and friction" have to be very low.

These are the points that make ceramic bearings a costly extravagance with no demonstrable benefit except to the seller.

Last edited by HillRider; 09-07-07 at 06:31 AM.
HillRider is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 11:12 AM
  #42  
Elitist Troglodyte
 
DMF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,925

Bikes: 03 Raleigh Professional (steel)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Still, it knocks the argument about loose balls being better into a cocked hat.


And it's "angels" that have rhythm, not "angles".
__________________
Stupidity got us into this mess - why can't it get us out?

- Will Rogers
DMF is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 11:31 AM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
well biked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 89 Posts
Originally Posted by DMF
Still, it knocks the argument about loose balls being better into a cocked hat.
I don't think it does at all. Keep in mind the link is to a company's website that makes bearings with loose balls, and touts them as being able to carry a greater load because of it, axial or radial. And again, why would Shimano make hubs with loose balls if they didn't feel like there are performance advantages? Are the retainers in the Dura Ace wheelsets, the ones kleng describes as being kind of like a netting and nothing like the old tin retainers that are most commonly seen on bikes, designed in such a way that they do create some advantages? I think they probably are, but I seriously doubt that all retainers are created equally in terms of enhancing performance, and that these netting-like retainers on the Dura Ace wheelsets are worlds better than a retainer you'd typically see in a bicycle bearing.

So if you're saying that these netting-like retainers (and probably the ones on the Campy hubs, too) on these high quality hubs create some performance advantage, I agree that the answer is probably yes. But if you're saying that a bearing on a bicycle with the balls retained in a typical tin cage is better than loose balls, I disagree.

Btw, apparently the only hubs Shimano makes with the retainers are on the Dura Ace wheelsets and the Dura Ace front hubs, model B. All of their other hubs use loose balls, including the Dura Ace "model A" front hubs, and the rear Dura Ace hubs-

Last edited by well biked; 09-06-07 at 12:23 PM.
well biked is offline  
Old 09-06-07, 11:56 AM
  #44  
Senior Member
 
Mhendricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, ca.
Posts: 1,326

Bikes: 2006 Orbea Volata, 84 Trek 760, 83 Trek 720,

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by tellyho
I thought the general consensus was that loose balls was better: more weight-bearing surface, less friction. I'm in the habit of ditching any retainers I find when I overhaul.
+1 Yes, loose balls are better and when replacing it's been my practice to fill all hubs and headsets with balls then minus 1. Also use only grade 25.
__________________
They call me "Mr. Mixte"
Mhendricks is offline  
Old 09-07-07, 02:25 AM
  #45  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
kleng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Perth, Australia and sometimes Penang Malaysia
Posts: 1,916

Bikes: Litespeed L1r, Litespeed Ghisallo 07, TCR Advanced Team SL 0 ISP, Giant TCR Advanced SL, Giant TCR Advanced Team - T-Mobile, Giant Propel Advanced SL

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by well biked
To further add to the confusion, I just checked Shimano's website and looked at the exploded view of the Dura Ace hubs, front and rear. The front is apparently available with two types of bearing assemblies, an A type or a B type. The A type uses loose balls, the B type uses the retainers. On the rear hubs, it's loose balls only, no "B type" available. It sounds like kleng's Dura Ace front hub is an A type (w/loose balls from the factory), and that's why there were loose balls in it-
Thanks for that, I was able to confirm Shimano directly that my Shimano WH-7801 wheelset front hubs should have retainers in them.

When I saw the loose bearings in the hub I thought I had a WH-7800 hub which had 14 x 3/16 loose bearings, but the funny thing was that the loose bearings were 5/32, so when I put in 14 3/16 bearings they would not fit and allow the cone to screw onto the axle. I was able to deduce that I indeed have a WH 7801 which can only handle the 5/32 bearing size and that the missing retainers were compensated by having an extra 2 bearing in each side.
kleng is offline  
Old 09-07-07, 06:30 AM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656

Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!

Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,095 Times in 741 Posts
Originally Posted by DMF
And it's "angels" that have rhythm, not "angles".
Right. I noticed the error when I reviewed my posting but spelling was never my strength. I'm glad the meaning was clear even if the spelling wasn't. I just edited the post to correct it.
HillRider is offline  
Old 09-07-07, 08:38 AM
  #47  
Elitist Troglodyte
 
DMF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,925

Bikes: 03 Raleigh Professional (steel)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Mhendricks
+1 Yes, loose balls are better
You people keep repeating that. I have yet to hear any reasoning supporting it. Is it because your grandfather told you so?
__________________
Stupidity got us into this mess - why can't it get us out?

- Will Rogers
DMF is offline  
Old 09-07-07, 09:00 AM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
well biked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,487
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 89 Posts
Originally Posted by DMF
You people keep repeating that. I have yet to hear any reasoning supporting it. Is it because your grandfather told you so?

I gave you some reasoning, the best that I could do, which was based on experience.

Take an old cup and cone bottom bracket with caged bearings, pack it with fresh grease, and spin it. Listen to it as you spin the cranks. Feel it as you spin the cranks. Spin the cranks and see how long the cranks spin after you let go. Then take it apart and repack it with loose balls and fresh grease, and repeat the test. Or just do it on another bike, with a similar bottom bracket, if you've got one. Then get back to us and see what conclusion you reach. The difference with headsets, as already agreed upon, is even more noticeable.

I've never heard anyone say that they repacked a (fill in whatever part here) with retainers on a bicycle, and then say it works smoother and quieter than it did with loose balls. But I've heard the opposite quite a lot. Why do you think that's so? And by the way, my grandfathers were great guys, but neither one of them worked on bikes as far as I know, and they never advised me on them. Nope, I just used my eyes, ears, and hands to reach the conclusion I have regarding ball bearing assemblies on bicycles-
well biked is offline  
Old 09-07-07, 09:54 AM
  #49  
Elitist Troglodyte
 
DMF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,925

Bikes: 03 Raleigh Professional (steel)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
(Not talking about headsets. I grant you that one.)

With all due respect, you're not reasoning. You're extrapolating from subjective experience. (Nor is your experience universal. Mr. Dopolina has related that his experience with hubs is different.)

Further, your experience is of an extremely limited subset of the total functional life of the bearing — typically only the first few rotations.

However, the scientific method is partly based on experimentation, so experience has a place. We just have to be careful how we use it. Try this.

I challenge anyone to feel or listen to a functional hub or BB, loaded or unloaded, after 1000 mi. of use and tell whether it has loose balls or a retainer. You should not know what type of bike or hub/BB it is. For statistical significance*, you have to be right (or wrong!) about 9 times out of 10.


*And technically, the result must be adjusted by the actual occurrence of each type in the tested population. E.g. if 90% of the samples are of one type, then a random response yields 90% accuracy. So 99% accuracy would be required.
__________________
Stupidity got us into this mess - why can't it get us out?

- Will Rogers

Last edited by DMF; 09-07-07 at 11:49 PM.
DMF is offline  
Old 09-07-07, 09:57 AM
  #50  
Mechanic/Tourist
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 7,522

Bikes: 2008 Novara Randonee - love it. Previous bikes:Motobecane Mirage, 1972 Moto Grand Jubilee (my fave), Jackson Rake 16, 1983 C'dale ST500.

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 486 Post(s)
Liked 11 Times in 11 Posts
I would find it hard to believe that the difference in efficiency/drag would be significant enough to choose one over the other. If the cage is the type that has a full complement of ball bearings I would go with that for the ease of maintenance mainly and the theoretical reduced friction as a side benefit. Otherwise I would choose loose balls because the added contact surface seems to promote smoother bearing wear. Rough bearings would certainly pose a greater friction cost than loose vs. caged, and most people do not check their bearings very often. Certainly in a shop setting I would choose loose balls (or a full complement cage) exclusively so as to give the customer the longest lasting overhaul.

p.s. My assumption of a small efficiency difference may be wrong, but I have not yet seen a reference to an actual measurement of a difference.
cny-bikeman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.