130mm vs 135mm rear hub spacing
 

So my bike has 126mm spacing, steel frame. Anywho, I was thinking of putting a 130mm freehub on the back and running a 7 or 8 speed casette. Bike shop a couple of times suggested going to 135 mm instead, but I don't know if I really want to. I have already gone from 120mm to 126mm spacing (re-bent the stays once) and I have no troubles putting in a 130mm single speed wheel on.

Any real reason why I should have to go to 135mm? I really just want 130mm spacing, then I don't have to permanently bend the stays to use the wheel.

Tom

Bike is a '71 Schwinn Super Sport. I use to run a 5 speed freewheel, but I was an axle bender.

120 to 135 - I've never seen that being recommended before :) I see no reason for 135 mm, unless you want mtb hubs: finding 700 c wheels with 135 hubs will be a bear. Besides, what's wrong with running a 7 or 8 speed freewheel?

Unless you're going to go with an MTB wheelset, they're trying to sell you another coldset job, methinks.

Tom, I see no reason to use a hub wider than 130 mm, many sport touring bikes use road hubs without problems.

Brad

130 is fine. 135, what for? Maybe to try to sell you a 700C hybrid wheel? These usually are 135mm and 7 or 8 speed freehub.
At 126mm, you can tug on it and squeeze a 130 on there now. Coldset it if you wish, but I'd stick with 130mm. Try a new LBS.

+1 for sticking with 130mm.

You can do anything you need with 130mm spacing.

Actually, road bike wheels with 135 spacing are easy to find. All Wally World Schwinn Preludes and Varsity road bikes have 135 spacing in the rear. The question is Why would an LBS recommend 135 spacing because almost every other road bike has 130 spacing. I wouldn't consider anything greater than 130mm spacing.

I've had two different bicycles coldset at this point, my Peugeot PX-8 and my Carlton Super Race. In each case I have had the frame spread to 132.5mm. I chose to go to that width because by doing so, you can go to either a road wheelset at 130mm or a MTB wheelset at 135mm without worrying about component failure becoming a concern.

Not so much some hybrids run 135mm.

unless you are a moose, skip the 135.

I've done two of my bikes this way as well, it's worked out fine.

No reason to go beyond a 130mm cassette for a road wheel as you can run all the gears you could ever want... I draw the line at 7 speed freewheels as with 8 you get into axle bending territory unless you are running a freewheel specific hub like a PW or Arvon that can run a 9 speed freewheel without axle issues.

sounds from your post that the only reason you are even bringing up the idea of 135 is due to a remark ("Bike shop a couple of times suggested going to 135 mm") from some saleman at the LBS. it was probably just ordinary BS, i wouldn't give it a second thought.

It was the bike mechanic who suggested it and perhaps it is due to me being a big guy, don't know. These guys have treated me right in the past so I do not distrust them, I just wanted 130mm and not bend the stays again. I have half thoughts of putting an early 126mm hyperglide 7 speed hub on it at some point in time, but I do not think I would gain anything over the 130mm hub.

Tom

i assumed it was an employee of some type. ;)

i'm not sure how the idea of a wider rear axle spacing became synonymous with strength, but a SHORTER rear axle is stronger than a longer rear axle i would think (all other factors remaining the same, that is).

rear axles have become longer over the years due to the tendency of manufacturers to respond to the perceived need of their clientele for more rear gears. the MTB crowd added a little more most likely to facilitate their outsized tire width. if so, your weight should not be a consideration.

135 has its benefits but if your only going to run a 7 or 8s cassette stay with 130 and save yourself the hassle.

So 135mm spacing doesn't make sense for a road bike, but does this also apply to a touring bike? I ask because I recently ordered a new wheelset for my touring bike that includes a 135-spaced rear hub. I have the option of cold-setting my frame from 126 to 135 (or 132.5) or respacing the rear hub to 130 and spreading the stays.

Apologies in advance for the thread-hijacking. I just think this question is closely enough related to bear asking here.

I've been splitting the difference on my bikes. 132.5mm. That's what Surly does with some of their frames. It's a good compromise if you want the option of running either a modern road or MTB wheelset.

jar351, Some loaded tourers, those meant for unsupported tours such as my Cannondale commonly have 135 mm rear drop out spacing while some others don't. The 135 mm spacing allows for more equal drive side and non drive side spoke tension, which makes for a stronger wheel. I don't know how much stronger, but maybe someone does. Have fun with the build.

Brad

We build custom hubs in 145 and 165 spacings to give us 0 dish 9 speed wheels and allow for dual drives (with no dish)... they do of course go into custom built frames that are designed to see some above average use and abuse.

A 135 mm hub will build a wheel with a little less dish than a 130 but for most it is not that big a difference and a well built wheel in either size will stand up to some pretty severe use.

My Trek 520 has 135 spacing as I thought a number of other frames built for loaded touring used. I also thought I read that Cross bikes are going to 135 spacing, mainly to accommodate disc brakes. I have also seen discussions where 135 might become the norm on road bikes as disc brakes become the norm.

Why do those road frames on the Walmart varsity bikes have that spacing? What kind of hubs are used? And how many speeds in the rear wheel?

I have no idea why Wally World road bikes have 135 spacing. I tried to come up with a logical reason, but I can't. The hubs are inexpensive, freewheel type hubs, similar to inexpensive mountain bike hubs. They almost always have a 7 speed freewheel.

That's probably it -- to be able to use the same parts on both bikes, with the incidental benefit of less asymmetrical dish.