Originally Posted by
Kimmo
The load path is between the spokes and the dropouts; it kinda has to go through the hub shell... Otherwise you wouldn't need a hub shell, would you. I dunno what you're doing with those arrows; it just looks like hand-waving to me. Why can't you draw some lines showing me how forces from/to the spokes get to/from the axle via your magical ratchet bearings? Don't just point at them and make an unsubstantiated assertion.
The load path is easy determine, and the diagram included above completely misses it.
- Load is directed downwards through the dropouts onto the ends of the axles.
- From there it is transmitted through the axle on each side, to the hub shell and from there to the hub flanges and then the spokes. From the spokes to the rim and from there to the tire. Obvious.
- Here is the problem: with the Campy-style hub, drive-side forces are transmitted through roughly 3cm of cantilevered axle.
- The freehub itself does not support rider weight, it only supports torque which is transferred from the chain to the sprockets to the hub shell, and to the spokes etc.
The skinny little cartridge bearings found in the Campy-style freehub are not designed to withstand any rider weight. This is obvious when you have to punch them out for replacement. They are only there to minimize friction during freewheeling.
So that is the fundamental problem with the Campy-style hub: the 3cm of unsupported axle. This is why this axle has to be bulked-up and made larger than equivalent Shimano hubs. It can be made to work well, but an inferior design.