Wrong

Time to get with modern equipment and start with cassette hubs. How many "i've bent my axle problems" were solved with 8 speed cassettes with QR axles? Riddle me that.

You want a riddle?
OK

Riddle: What do you call it when the operator of a thread posting device disagrees with your conclusion yet supplies a rational concurring with your proposal?

Answer: An operator error.

Get it.

I'm the one arguing freehub axles are more reliable than than freewheel axles-Mr. Froze is the one disagreeing about freehubs being more prone to axle failure than freehubs.

Incorrect...but correct me if I'm wrong...huh? Anywhos; what I said was that freewheels DID NOT have a problem with failure, and that besides the front hub the freewheel was the most dependable part on a bike back in the days of freewheels. In otherwords all this failure stuff in regards to freewheels was WAAAAAAY over blown. My current rear hub has about 150,000 miles on it...where's the failure? And reread my post about others I know, (or heard of in the Parade Magazine years ago) that have even MORE miles then I do! I also said that perhaps the 8 speed freewheels probably had some problems, but those were not sold by the millions because by then cassettes became the rage thus we will never know the true ratio of failures compared to the 5, 6, and 7 speeders. And by the way, did you know that in Asia and other 3rd world countries you will find far more freewheels then cassettes today? Hmmm, and their not crying about failure rates either.

i have no clue what any of you are talking about anymore

Neither do I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

actually 8 speed freewheels were what killed off the freewheel. they allowed to much axel to cantilever beyond the bearing cones this led to bent and broken axels. the freehub was the fix for this problem. the desighners moved the cones out near the end of the hub to support the weight better. wheather the axel was solid or hollow didnt really seem to matter much

Actually that makes sense! Maybe that's why the freewheels got a bad rap was because of failure rate with the 8 speed. That's why all my earlier posts discussed problems with the 8 speeders. Again my experience, and those of others, had extremily low rate of problems with the 5, 6 and 7's.

One of the six speeds I broke was a Maillard. One the five speeds a Normandy. The other five speed was on a 73 Schwinn Super Sport, no idea on the hub brand though it did have a Sun Tour freewheel. I don't recall what the other six speed was.

No-in post 23 you clearly said freewheel-not freehub.
If your 150,000 mile hub is a freehub-as the latest post implies, that seems prove the point of freehub axles being more reliable than freewheel axles.
As McNamara pointed out in the previously cited article, he need replace at least one axle every 2 years on his six speed: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/mcnamara.html
And Sheldon's article sited freehubs as a solution to freewheel axle failures: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/k7.html


No I didn't, but it conjures up images of all those cogless freehub bikes being pushed around for lack of cassettes.

Your right about the wording mix up, my bad, I used freewheel and freehub interchangeable due to wording mixup. I was TRYING to write about FREEWHEELS. I could edit all of those posts. But again FREEWHEEL hubs never had any real problems. AGAIN, let me stress that the FREEWHEEL hubs were the second most dependable part on a bike.

It's possible that older 70's French design hubs may have used inferior axles over the Italians and the Japanese since older French stuff usually had problems anyways; but I also knew people that had French hubs built in the 80's and they never had issues. French did make a superior touring freewheel hub by a company called Maxi-Car (actually design for tandems but touring folk soon discovered them), going back to around 1935 and folk never had any real problmes with those even back in the 30's! I don't know if that company is still making hubs or not.

PS; I went back and edited my errors, that should make my point clearer. Actually who really cares? All you younger people who never rode on freewheels will think that they had major problems, in fact you probably think all bikes made prior to 1990 were just heaps of junk falling apart as you rode. While in fact I have less problems with my 150,000 mile plus 25 year old bike then others that I ride with that barely have 10,000 miles on 2 year old bikes! Figure that one out. Why is it that no one complains about the fact that these newer very thin chains have to be replace every 3,000 miles, or everytime you change tires you should change the chain? The older wider chains could easily go 3 times that distance and are cheaper then the thin ones to replace. But instead we're all bickering over the older freewheel design that actually was a very dependable part on a bike and rarely needed to be replace, and when they were replaced it was largely due to wear out not breakage.