View Single Post
Old 04-12-15 | 08:11 AM
  #17  
dddd's Avatar
dddd
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,834
Likes: 1,810
From: Northern California

Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.

Originally Posted by Grand Bois
I don't follow your logic there.
Addressing the "axle strength" issue here, by having minimal axle (I should have said "locknut") protrusion past the smallest cog, the unsupported length of the axle (between the bearing and the dropout) is kept to an absolute minimum.

The part about the rear axle's fine threading (.8mm iir) is just that it gives a further boost to axle strength, since the finer threads are cut shallower. Good thinking, though from the same company that later brought us the dreaded Helicomatic hub designs.
A larger number of threads contacting the dropout for any given amount of threaded axle protrusion also has to be good.

I evaluate many rear wheels that I work on for the possibility (and justification) of axle-spacing rework, especially if the needed re-dishing can be simply part of the normal spoke tuning that most wheels that I haven't worked on before will get. This way, there is a minimal total investment in effort/hours by making axle-respacing part of a routine hub rebuild and making re-dishing part of a routine re-tensioning.
dddd is offline  
Reply