Stripped Nashbar Hub
08-09-05, 11:12 PM
#1
lives in a giant shoe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: st paul, mn
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Stripped Nashbar Hub
I got my fixed gear on Monday. I bought it off ebay and the guy said he only rode it once. The wheelset is in immaculate condition, except it feels like my hub might be stripped already. Tonight when I was riding it if I put too much pressure on it either way it would skip a little. The hub is threaded for fixed/fixed so I could always use the other side, but if it's going to strip that side too then I'd rather try to get it replaced either by nashbar or the seller. I'm going to take it into the bike shop tomorrow, but I was wondering what you guys think?
08-09-05, 11:28 PM
#2
Skidmaster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,627
Bikes: don walker, redline, TBD
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
i have a nashbar hub and haven't had any problems. i do lots of skidding/skipping. are you sure the lockring is tightened all the way? mine was doing the same thing and it turned out I didn't have the lockring tightened all the way.
08-09-05, 11:33 PM
#5
troglodyte
Of course, if you don't have the aforementioned tools, ride the bike up a hill really standing on the pedals, and get off without using backpressure. Now, your cog is on real good. Now use a screwdriver and hammer to rotate the lockring tighter. Note: it's reverse-threaded. Or... just take it to your LBS
08-10-05, 12:19 AM
#7
Ferrous wheel
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,388
Bikes: 2004 Gunnar Rock Hound MTB; 1988 Gitane Team Pro road bike; 1986-ish Raleigh USA Grand Prix; mid-'80s Univega Gran Tourismo with Xtracycle Free Radical
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you aren't sure what you're doing, take it to the LBS pronto. Sounds possible it may not be stripped yet, in which case you shouldn't be riding it until you tighten the cog and locknut.
08-10-05, 02:30 PM
#9
Senior Member
Originally Posted by ryan_c
Of course, if you don't have the aforementioned tools, ride the bike up a hill really standing on the pedals, and get off without using backpressure. Now, your cog is on real good. Now use a screwdriver and hammer to rotate the lockring tighter. Note: it's reverse-threaded. Or... just take it to your LBS
Do NOT do this! This doesn't apply all that much torque to the cog. The theoretical torque application would be the input torque DIVIDED BY the gain ratio. you'd be using the same method to backpedal, which could conceivably unscrew the cog/lockring.
It's best to do this with a 12" chainwhip and a GOOD lockring wrench. As I pointed out in another thread where someone used this method (and it resulted in hub-tragedy), the equivalent of 140 lbs on a 170 mm crank with a 40x16 gearing can be accomplished with only 32 lbs (approx., I'll find my calculations later) on a 12" chainwhip.
140 lbs is probably a good estimate of loading, at least for me, since that's my weight. But at any rate, it hi-lights the point that you can accomplish much greater torque with a chainwhip and lockring than you can just using that guy's method.
Take it to the shop if you don't have the tools.
08-10-05, 08:39 PM
#10
jack of one or two trades
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Suburbia, CT
Posts: 5,640
Bikes: Old-ass gearie hardtail MTB, fix-converted Centurion LeMans commuter, SS hardtail monster MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
08-10-05, 10:07 PM
#11
troglodyte
Originally Posted by DiegoFrogs
Do NOT do this! This doesn't apply all that much torque to the cog. The theoretical torque application would be the input torque DIVIDED BY the gain ratio. you'd be using the same method to backpedal, which could conceivably unscrew the cog/lockring.
It's best to do this with a 12" chainwhip and a GOOD lockring wrench. As I pointed out in another thread where someone used this method (and it resulted in hub-tragedy), the equivalent of 140 lbs on a 170 mm crank with a 40x16 gearing can be accomplished with only 32 lbs (approx., I'll find my calculations later) on a 12" chainwhip.
140 lbs is probably a good estimate of loading, at least for me, since that's my weight. But at any rate, it hi-lights the point that you can accomplish much greater torque with a chainwhip and lockring than you can just using that guy's method.
Take it to the shop if you don't have the tools.
It's best to do this with a 12" chainwhip and a GOOD lockring wrench. As I pointed out in another thread where someone used this method (and it resulted in hub-tragedy), the equivalent of 140 lbs on a 170 mm crank with a 40x16 gearing can be accomplished with only 32 lbs (approx., I'll find my calculations later) on a 12" chainwhip.
140 lbs is probably a good estimate of loading, at least for me, since that's my weight. But at any rate, it hi-lights the point that you can accomplish much greater torque with a chainwhip and lockring than you can just using that guy's method.
Take it to the shop if you don't have the tools.
08-10-05, 10:55 PM
#12
lives in a giant shoe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: st paul, mn
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Looks like it's stripped. Took it into the shop and the guy tightened it with all his might and it still slips. I'm going to take it into a different shop tomorrow to get it looked at. If it is stripped is it possible to get it replaced by nashbar or do I have to try and get a refund from the seller? If they do replace it will I only get a hub? What can I expect?
08-10-05, 11:03 PM
#13
Cornucopia of Awesomeness
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: not where i used to be
Posts: 4,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
you can expect........ nothing
It's not a manufacturing defect, it stripped due to improper installation/maintenance.
suck it up and either JB weld it on, or use the other side.
It's not a manufacturing defect, it stripped due to improper installation/maintenance.
suck it up and either JB weld it on, or use the other side.
08-10-05, 11:05 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
i had this prob with the original hub that came on my langster. i'm assuming that the hubs are of comparable quality. I had the wheel replaced by specialized (after assuring them that i had been riding with a brake and wasn't skidding), and it happened again, at that point i built a wheel up around a dura-ace hub. my advice is to scrap it and get a better hub.
08-10-05, 11:19 PM
#15
Ferrous wheel
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,388
Bikes: 2004 Gunnar Rock Hound MTB; 1988 Gitane Team Pro road bike; 1986-ish Raleigh USA Grand Prix; mid-'80s Univega Gran Tourismo with Xtracycle Free Radical
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
JB Weld is good stuff. That's what I would do.
08-11-05, 08:18 AM
#16
Retrogrouch in Training
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knee-deep in the day-to-day
Posts: 5,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I doubt there's anything wrong with the hub yet. Threads don't really strip "just a little". That's like being a little pregnant.
What cog is on there? It's entirely possible that the cog isn't wide enough to properly seat against the lockring. Surly's were notorious for this back in the day. A Dura Ace or EAI cog aren't that much and are fine quality. Go DA if you can stay at 16t or smaller, EAI if you must go over. Know that there have been a few reports of EAI cogs cracking, but that seems to be relatively rare.
What cog is on there? It's entirely possible that the cog isn't wide enough to properly seat against the lockring. Surly's were notorious for this back in the day. A Dura Ace or EAI cog aren't that much and are fine quality. Go DA if you can stay at 16t or smaller, EAI if you must go over. Know that there have been a few reports of EAI cogs cracking, but that seems to be relatively rare.
08-11-05, 08:51 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: gainesville, FL
Posts: 141
Bikes: trek 520 with gold rims, custom villin
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This guy doesent knowwhat he's talking about. Given the guy only weighs a 140, and the length to the point loading on the crank is probably about the same as the length to the equivalent point loading (your hand is about 3 inches wide) on a chainwhip-- you can just look at the gain ratio as your force reduction.
Simply put: You'd be putting at least 500 inch pounds of torque on that cog.
Plenty if you as me.
Simply put: You'd be putting at least 500 inch pounds of torque on that cog.
Plenty if you as me.
08-11-05, 11:11 AM
#18
Senior Member
I'll leave the proof as an exercise to the reader, however, the calculation goes as follows:
(140 lbs * 170 mm * 1/25.4 in/mm) * (16/40 teeth/teeth) / 12 in = 31.233595800524934383202099737533 lbs.
your logic, simply enough, would lower the location of the force by 3.0 in/2 = 1.5 in, so the effective lever would be 12 - 1.5, or 10.5.
31.2336 lbs * 12/10.5 in/in = 35.695538057742782152230971128609 lbs.
capiche? I'll typeset my work and all the steps of my logic and post them when I get a chance. I may be only 140 lbs, and I may be a dork, but I'm secure in my understanding of the mechanics at work here (despite probably poor assumptions about the magnitude of the loading at the cranks, but they illustrate my point pretty well.). I'll be sure to use a bunch of diagrams.
And to correct an errata in my original post, the gain ratio was not what I had intended to use in the calculation. it should be input torque divided by GEAR RATIO equals output torque. Neither you nor I are free from mistakes...
(140 lbs * 170 mm * 1/25.4 in/mm) * (16/40 teeth/teeth) / 12 in = 31.233595800524934383202099737533 lbs.
your logic, simply enough, would lower the location of the force by 3.0 in/2 = 1.5 in, so the effective lever would be 12 - 1.5, or 10.5.
31.2336 lbs * 12/10.5 in/in = 35.695538057742782152230971128609 lbs.
capiche? I'll typeset my work and all the steps of my logic and post them when I get a chance. I may be only 140 lbs, and I may be a dork, but I'm secure in my understanding of the mechanics at work here (despite probably poor assumptions about the magnitude of the loading at the cranks, but they illustrate my point pretty well.). I'll be sure to use a bunch of diagrams.
And to correct an errata in my original post, the gain ratio was not what I had intended to use in the calculation. it should be input torque divided by GEAR RATIO equals output torque. Neither you nor I are free from mistakes...
08-11-05, 11:23 AM
#20
Senior Member
I just have to hope that my calculation informs someone's decision. People, even engineers that I deal with, aren't always capable of thinking without seeing a worked example in front of them. The mechanics of the system really aren't all that advanced.
As an aside, does anyone have any idea of the length of a typical chainwhip? I "built" my 12"er out of a funky bar that I had in the garage and an old chain. I looked around, but couldn't find any specs on them...
As an aside, does anyone have any idea of the length of a typical chainwhip? I "built" my 12"er out of a funky bar that I had in the garage and an old chain. I looked around, but couldn't find any specs on them...
08-11-05, 11:26 AM
#21
Perineal Pressurized
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In Ebritated
Posts: 6,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by DiegoFrogs
I'll leave the proof as an exercise to the reader, however, the calculation goes as follows
__________________
This is Africa, 1943. War spits out its violence overhead and the sandy graveyard swallows it up. Her name is King Nine, B-25, medium bomber, Twelfth Air Force. On a hot, still morning she took off from Tunisia to bomb the southern tip of Italy. An errant piece of flak tore a hole in a wing tank and, like a wounded bird, this is where she landed, not to return on this day, or any other day.
This is Africa, 1943. War spits out its violence overhead and the sandy graveyard swallows it up. Her name is King Nine, B-25, medium bomber, Twelfth Air Force. On a hot, still morning she took off from Tunisia to bomb the southern tip of Italy. An errant piece of flak tore a hole in a wing tank and, like a wounded bird, this is where she landed, not to return on this day, or any other day.
08-11-05, 11:37 AM
#22
Senior Member
No, I guessed that the maximum loading that I would possibly apply at the crank was probably about the equivalent of my weight (this might be kind of low, but it illustrates my point).
I calculated that, on my bicycle as an example (geared sort of low, a higher gearing would only increase the validity of my hypothesis...), an equivalent torque delivered via 12" chainwhip would require only about 32 lbs. I may only weigh 140 lbs, but I KNOW I can push 32 lbs with my puny nerdy body.
My point: It's MUCH easier to tighten the cog and lockring appropriately with a chainwhip. Besides, It's possible for you to reverse the forces on the pedals and produce an equivalent torque in the opposite direction, loosening the cog/lockring assembly.
I'd just rather not see someone get hurt because someone on the internet hypothesized without logic or calculation that something was safe, when in fact I feel that I've just proved that it is not.
I calculated that, on my bicycle as an example (geared sort of low, a higher gearing would only increase the validity of my hypothesis...), an equivalent torque delivered via 12" chainwhip would require only about 32 lbs. I may only weigh 140 lbs, but I KNOW I can push 32 lbs with my puny nerdy body.
My point: It's MUCH easier to tighten the cog and lockring appropriately with a chainwhip. Besides, It's possible for you to reverse the forces on the pedals and produce an equivalent torque in the opposite direction, loosening the cog/lockring assembly.
I'd just rather not see someone get hurt because someone on the internet hypothesized without logic or calculation that something was safe, when in fact I feel that I've just proved that it is not.
08-11-05, 11:53 AM
#23
Retrogrouch in Training
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knee-deep in the day-to-day
Posts: 5,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
But, a person can instantaneously produce more torque than their weight alone. Simply jumping down onto the crank will give you more torque. Likewise in an all out sprint the upper body can deliver additional downforce allowing you to generate more than the 140 lbs you weigh. Sufficiently more? Beats me, I don't feel like doing the math.
Of course I recommend "the Italian method" which is going to deliver more torque than any standard chainwhip without a cheater bar. Of course you have to be careful not to completely strip the hub or cut new threads.
Chainwhips work well too, I just don't have one in 1/8".
Of course I recommend "the Italian method" which is going to deliver more torque than any standard chainwhip without a cheater bar. Of course you have to be careful not to completely strip the hub or cut new threads.
Chainwhips work well too, I just don't have one in 1/8".
08-11-05, 12:16 PM
#24
jack of one or two trades
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Suburbia, CT
Posts: 5,640
Bikes: Old-ass gearie hardtail MTB, fix-converted Centurion LeMans commuter, SS hardtail monster MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Italian method = Rotafixa + pretentious accent
08-11-05, 12:43 PM
#25
Retrogrouch in Training
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knee-deep in the day-to-day
Posts: 5,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Actually, Rotafixa is Italian. "plus: the cog is fixed following a method learned by an old italian champion, sprint gold medal at Tokyo '64 olympic games: there is no lock ring on the rear hub..." -- Paolo from chaingang rotafixa s.p.a.