View Single Post
Old 03-30-18, 04:09 PM
  #24  
sweeks
Senior Member
 
sweeks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 1,168

Bikes: Airborne "Carpe Diem", Trek 6000, Strida 2, Dahon "Helios XL", Dahon "Mu XL", Tern "Verge S11i"

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Liked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by 79pmooney View Post
Before I sweat the friction from the contact of loose bearings, someone is going to have to show me real numbers on just how high this friction really is. The bearings may be touching, but there is very little force being transmitted between them.


Originally Posted by mtb_addict View Post
It's best to use the bearings as is, as intended by engineers.
Engineers also work with manufacturing... caged bearings are faster to install than loose balls and also cost less. In some low-cost hubs, the speed of assembly and material costs may be significant in terms of competitive pricing. This doesn't apply to home mechanics adding more balls and pitching the cages. As noted, some higher-end hubs (Ultegra in my case) have loose balls.

Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
I think the spacing is wider between balls than in other, high performance applications. I've also seen it claimed that the balls naturally spread themselves out in the available space, which means that sliding friction between the balls would be negligible. In that case, the primary advantage noted by NASA would not be applicable.

Steve
sweeks is offline