Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

Introduction of 126 spacing and 7 speed

Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

Introduction of 126 spacing and 7 speed

Old 03-23-18, 02:56 PM
  #51  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Just to put some image to words, here's a 7 speed freehub. Note the lip on the hub body below the DS flange before the freehub body, and the stops the cassette butts against on the inside of the freehub itself:



And here's an 8/9/10 freehub. Note that the body lip below the flange is greatly reduced and the cassette can slide further onto the freehub body. Those modifications to the hub body and freehub are why it was easy for Shimano to extend the cassette inboard by 2mm without moving the hub flange. They had room to burn.

Kontact is offline  
Old 03-23-18, 08:57 PM
  #52  
63rickert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 20 Times in 17 Posts
An 11 speed cassette is more than 10mm wider than a 6 speed freewheel. Moving flanges 2mm each side is not what happens. From the history you are giving you have not built many 126 wheels. I have been doing that for 45 years and yes I have built a few in the past year. If you were familiar with the width of a six block you would jump back each time you saw a massively wide 11. The two pieces are on a completely different scale. We are talking apples and watermelons.

You have probably built more modern wheels than I. I've done it, pulling up the rears doesn't even feel like wheelbuilding to me. It is not pleasant. It does not feel right.

I have been at this since 110mm hubs still stalked the land. They weren't currently produced when I began riding but they were very much in use. Derailleur gears might use any hub dimension and you measured.

To go back to your query. When Ultra6 was introduced 126 and six speed were well established and had been for years. Not universal. Things were moving in the wider direction, there was no assurance that 120 was going away for good. People had old bikes that were good bikes and they had wheels. If you weren't prepared to spread your rear triangle (many are still hesitant about this simple task) you could have an extra gear like everyone else. Once it was clear that SunTour could sell a good number of Ultra6 FWs there was every reason to sell Ultra7. Not more complicated than that.

Shimano's introduction of cassettes was also about selling product. Market strategy. The canard about broken axles was just that. Salamandrine above was getting 15,000 or better on an axle. I ventured 5000 as a minimum number, my normal would have been much higher than that. If you are in the trade you know very well that few bikes ever go that far, few wheels ever go that far. A total non-issue was blown up into nonsense that has now circulated for 35 years and is believed without question. Advertising. Brainwashing. Same with broken spokes. If we are talking about similar shop built wheels any six speed is way less stressed than any 11 speed. Yet 6speed and freewheels are still slammed over fictional spokes that never broke. Those spokes only broke in the marketing department, they broke on a copywriters keyboard, they didn't break on a bike. Next we could talk about the brainwashing involved in convincing riders they "need" thirty three gears.
63rickert is offline  
Old 03-23-18, 10:28 PM
  #53  
repechage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,341
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 936 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 11 Posts
As nlerner mentions, the Raleigh Pro came std. with a 6 block as early as 1972, maybe earlier. The reluctance for racers moving to using 6 was also attributed to exchanging wheels under the duress of racing. Often road races had following vehicles with support wheels... In the 70's there was mismatch stress.
Racers wanted 6 for getting a 13t top end cog and not increasing the step width.
Selecting ratios in races other than criteriums was an art.
Of course the shop talk was if you needed a gear for climbing beyond a 42x21 you were off the back anyway...
repechage is offline  
Old 03-23-18, 10:57 PM
  #54  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by 63rickert View Post
An 11 speed cassette is more than 10mm wider than a 6 speed freewheel. Moving flanges 2mm each side is not what happens. From the history you are giving you have not built many 126 wheels. I have been doing that for 45 years and yes I have built a few in the past year. If you were familiar with the width of a six block you would jump back each time you saw a massively wide 11. The two pieces are on a completely different scale. We are talking apples and watermelons.

You have probably built more modern wheels than I. I've done it, pulling up the rears doesn't even feel like wheelbuilding to me. It is not pleasant. It does not feel right.

I have been at this since 110mm hubs still stalked the land. They weren't currently produced when I began riding but they were very much in use. Derailleur gears might use any hub dimension and you measured.

To go back to your query. When Ultra6 was introduced 126 and six speed were well established and had been for years. Not universal. Things were moving in the wider direction, there was no assurance that 120 was going away for good. People had old bikes that were good bikes and they had wheels. If you weren't prepared to spread your rear triangle (many are still hesitant about this simple task) you could have an extra gear like everyone else. Once it was clear that SunTour could sell a good number of Ultra6 FWs there was every reason to sell Ultra7. Not more complicated than that.

Shimano's introduction of cassettes was also about selling product. Market strategy. The canard about broken axles was just that. Salamandrine above was getting 15,000 or better on an axle. I ventured 5000 as a minimum number, my normal would have been much higher than that. If you are in the trade you know very well that few bikes ever go that far, few wheels ever go that far. A total non-issue was blown up into nonsense that has now circulated for 35 years and is believed without question. Advertising. Brainwashing. Same with broken spokes. If we are talking about similar shop built wheels any six speed is way less stressed than any 11 speed. Yet 6speed and freewheels are still slammed over fictional spokes that never broke. Those spokes only broke in the marketing department, they broke on a copywriters keyboard, they didn't break on a bike. Next we could talk about the brainwashing involved in convincing riders they "need" thirty three gears.
I didn't say the flanges moved, I said they didn't.

My first wheelbuild was 1980s Campy 29 years ago.

C-Record 126mm low flange hub - center to right flange: 21mm
Shimano FH-5500 105 130mm 9 speed hub - center to right flange: 20.5mm


Looks to me like Shimano managed to fit 10 sprockets in the space of formerly occupied by a 6 speed freewheel by just adding 2mm to the right side of the axle. So what are you talking about?
Kontact is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 07:57 AM
  #55  
ThermionicScott 
hungry
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 18,472

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers)

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2028 Post(s)
Liked 98 Times in 81 Posts
Shimano hubs are the only ones I really pay attention to, but I think you're generally right @Kontact. In going from 7 to 8-10, Shimano added 2mm of spacers to the NDS, and the freehub body has 3mm more room for cogs, so they must have done some combination of eating into the ledge behind the cogs, and/or shaving away DS spacers to bring the top cog slightly closer to the dropout.

There is an idee fixe that the move from 6/7 speed to 8-10 took wheel durability from a precarious position to horrifically bad, and that may have been true for some brands/makes, but Shimano's seem little changed.

Most of the 126mm 7-speed hubs I've worked with had a 1mm NDS washer/spacer and 2mm DS washer/spacer which I swap to help the dish situation a little.

Last edited by ThermionicScott; 03-24-18 at 11:04 AM. Reason: limit scope to 10-speed, 11-speed may be bad
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 08:32 AM
  #56  
T-Mar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,851
Mentioned: 431 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 65 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
That isn't a problem that "needed to be solved". I was pointing out one of the dimensional issues from the mix and match freewheel/hub days that kept the low cog from getting as close to the right flange as integrated cassettes got them. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with freewheels - but freehubs made it easier to extend the sprockets both inward and out for 8-11.
Well stated. This a heart of the matter. With a freehub, the integrated unit allows dimensions to be optimized and clearance kept to a minimum. With a freewheel hub the designer has to accommodate all the dimensional variations in the different the freewheels brands and models, which results in designs with larger clearance factors. Of course, a hub manufacturer could have designed shells for a particular freewheel. This would have resulted in clearances as small as freehubs but would have risked incompatibility with other brands and models of freewheels, which would have restricted the potential market.
T-Mar is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 08:52 AM
  #57  
T-Mar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,851
Mentioned: 431 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2482 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 65 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by 63rickert View Post
...Shimano's introduction of cassettes was also about selling product. Market strategy. The canard about broken axles was just that. Salamandrine above was getting 15,000 or better on an axle. I ventured 5000 as a minimum number, my normal would have been much higher than that. If you are in the trade you know very well that few bikes ever go that far, few wheels ever go that far. A total non-issue was blown up into nonsense that has now circulated for 35 years and is believed without question. Advertising. Brainwashing. Same with broken spokes. If we are talking about similar shop built wheels any six speed is way less stressed than any 11 speed. Yet 6speed and freewheels are still slammed over fictional spokes that never broke. Those spokes only broke in the marketing department, they broke on a copywriters keyboard, they didn't break on a bike. Next we could talk about the brainwashing involved in convincing riders they "need" thirty three gears.
Bent axles were a real issue in my region. Shimano's Uni Balance freehub went a log way to solving this issue. It also resulted in stronger wheels, more gear ratio flexibility and the ability to service the bearings without removing a freewheel. There were a lot of practical advantages that made it so much more than just marketing hype. IMO, it's one of the great inventions of the post boom era.
T-Mar is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 09:34 AM
  #58  
jjames1452 
Senior Member
 
jjames1452's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 1,203

Bikes: Trek 720, Trek 620, Trek 520, Steel Schwinns, AD Puch, Kona, Nishiki Pro

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Campy 8 speed

I want to try Campy 8 speed brifters with a Shimano 7 speed 126 mm hub. I am also told if you can find a 120 mm cassette hub, set it up for 6 speed using 7 speed spacers, the aforementioned Campy 8 speed brifters will work nicely. I love experimental math!!
jjames1452 is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 09:34 AM
  #59  
63rickert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 20 Times in 17 Posts
A quick google around shows center right on Dura Acee 9000 as 16.5mm. Chris King 17mm. DT 16.9mm. White T11 18mm. There's a reason this information is made available.

There's a reason most 11 speed wheels are pre-built at the factory. There's a reason we now need 4 corner spoke wrenches to finish a build. There's a reason that Ron Boi or Andy Muzi will tell you to not even think about lacing a vintage rim to a modern hub. And if they didn't tell you or you didn't care what they said simply putting the old and new parts on the wheelstand would tell you something is wrong here. Putting new and new parts on the wheelstand would tell you this is a whole different world. Or you could ride down the road and look at vertical right banks of spokes and chains at crazy angles and know this is not like versus like.

Easier to service? More flexible? Again I just do not recognize the universe being described.
63rickert is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 11:19 AM
  #60  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by jjames1452 View Post
I want to try Campy 8 speed brifters with a Shimano 7 speed 126 mm hub. I am also told if you can find a 120 mm cassette hub, set it up for 6 speed using 7 speed spacers, the aforementioned Campy 8 speed brifters will work nicely. I love experimental math!!
Shimano/Microshift 7 speed, Suntour 7, any Campy 7 or 8 speed, Sachs 7 and most 8 and Mavic 7/8 are all the same 5.0 spacing that was used on Ultra 6 freewheels. So it would be pretty easy to find an index system that would work on a Ultra6 if you wanted one.
Kontact is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 11:25 AM
  #61  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by 63rickert View Post
A quick google around shows center right on Dura Acee 9000 as 16.5mm. Chris King 17mm. DT 16.9mm. White T11 18mm. There's a reason this information is made available.

There's a reason most 11 speed wheels are pre-built at the factory. There's a reason we now need 4 corner spoke wrenches to finish a build. There's a reason that Ron Boi or Andy Muzi will tell you to not even think about lacing a vintage rim to a modern hub. And if they didn't tell you or you didn't care what they said simply putting the old and new parts on the wheelstand would tell you something is wrong here. Putting new and new parts on the wheelstand would tell you this is a whole different world. Or you could ride down the road and look at vertical right banks of spokes and chains at crazy angles and know this is not like versus like.

Easier to service? More flexible? Again I just do not recognize the universe being described.
The hub dimensions you're complaining about go back to the late '80s. What do you consider a "vintage rim"? Because we were very much lacing MA40, Wolbers and Ambrosios to 130 spaced hubs.


Are you confusing low spoke counts with flange location?

Last edited by Kontact; 03-24-18 at 11:34 AM.
Kontact is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 11:32 AM
  #62  
ThermionicScott 
hungry
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 18,472

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers)

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2028 Post(s)
Liked 98 Times in 81 Posts
I could swear that when I first started reading about 11-speed, the OLD was going to open up to 131mm (or maybe a little more) in order to make everything work out. I guess they skipped that.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 11:42 AM
  #63  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
I could swear that when I first started reading about 11-speed, the OLD was going to open up to 131mm (or maybe a little more) in order to make everything work out. I guess they skipped that.
Shimano supposedly went to 131. Campy did not - they just kept using their 9 speed hubs and overlapped the low cog with the end of the freehub.

https://www.bikerumor.com/2012/05/01...ech-breakdown/
Kontact is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 12:02 PM
  #64  
dddd
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
 
dddd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,526

Bikes: Cheltenham-Pederson 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.

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 536 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
The hub dimensions you're complaining about go back to the late '80s. What do you consider a "vintage rim"? Because we were very much lacing MA40, Wolbers and Ambrosios to 130 spaced hubs.


Are you confusing low spoke counts with flange location?


Many older rims had symmetrical vs. offset rims, a design which would include many modern rims, but alternating spoke holes were offset to either side of the rim's center, which further reduced the bracing angle of the spokes on both sides of the wheel.

Some of the heavier vintage rims were forgiving of poor spoke bracing angle because their stiffness spread the localized loading near the contact patch to a greater number of spokes, much like today's wide aero rims do to reliably utilize a lower spoke count.

A stiff rim with poor spoke bracing angles does however translate more of the flex down near the contact patch up to the brake pads, so such combinations of old rims on new hubs are more likely to produce serious problems with brake rub under conditions of hard pedaling out of the saddle.

This isn't just theory, I found this out the hard way!
dddd is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 12:11 PM
  #65  
ThermionicScott 
hungry
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 18,472

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers)

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2028 Post(s)
Liked 98 Times in 81 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
Shimano supposedly went to 131. Campy did not - they just kept using their 9 speed hubs and overlapped the low cog with the end of the freehub.

https://www.bikerumor.com/2012/05/01...ech-breakdown/
Ah, yes, that's the article I was thinking of!

Upon re-reading it, maybe only DT Swiss went to 131mm, and Shimano never planned to. Their techdocs still say 130mm.
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/produ...0/FH-9000.html
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/produ...0/FH-6800.html
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 12:18 PM
  #66  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by dddd View Post
Many older rims had symmetrical vs. offset rims, a design which would include many modern rims, but alternating spoke holes were offset to either side of the rim's center, which further reduced the bracing angle of the spokes on both sides of the wheel.

Some of the heavier vintage rims were forgiving of poor spoke bracing angle because their stiffness spread the localized loading near the contact patch to a greater number of spokes, much like today's wide aero rims do to reliably utilize a lower spoke count.

A stiff rim with poor spoke bracing angles does however translate more of the flex down near the contact patch up to the brake pads, so such combinations of old rims on new hubs are more likely to produce serious problems with brake rub under conditions of hard pedaling out of the saddle.

This isn't just theory, I found this out the hard way!
Moving the flange 3mm does not change the entry angle into the rim as significantly as 3x vs radial or high vs low flange. But all of these are fractions of a degree. Specifically, if you go from a center to flange measure of 20 to 17mm on a 275mm spoke, your bracing angle changes from 4.117 to 3.544. That's insignificant.
Kontact is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 05:29 PM
  #67  
dddd
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
 
dddd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,526

Bikes: Cheltenham-Pederson 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.

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 536 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
Moving the flange 3mm does not change the entry angle into the rim as significantly as 3x vs radial or high vs low flange. But all of these are fractions of a degree. Specifically, if you go from a center to flange measure of 20 to 17mm on a 275mm spoke, your bracing angle changes from 4.117 to 3.544. That's insignificant.

That's a 17-percent difference, which is VERY significant in the context of designing a wheel. You have to really struggle for each couple percent when designing a modern wheel, since the "free lunch" of closing up gaps went away many years ago.
To put it into perspective, the bracing angle defines the level of cyclic stress of spoke tension, and an increase of even five percent loading will cut the number of cycles-to-failure by many times more than that, greatly shortening a wheel's lifespan.
Look at the plotted curves of stress vs. cycles-to-failure for a metal fatigue test and you'll see what I mean, but it's even worse than that because the bracing angle is regressive as the wheel actually deflects.
A 17-percent wheel stress difference is equivalent to a 190# rider taking the place of a 160# rider, but again it's actually worse than that.
dddd is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 05:50 PM
  #68  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by dddd View Post
That's a 17-percent difference, which is VERY significant in the context of designing a wheel. You have to really struggle for each couple percent when designing a modern wheel, since the "free lunch" of closing up gaps went away many years ago.
To put it into perspective, the bracing angle defines the level of cyclic stress of spoke tension, and an increase of even five percent loading will cut the number of cycles-to-failure by many times more than that, greatly shortening a wheel's lifespan.
Look at the plotted curves of stress vs. cycles-to-failure for a metal fatigue test and you'll see what I mean, but it's even worse than that because the bracing angle is regressive as the wheel actually deflects.
A 17-percent wheel stress difference is equivalent to a 190# rider taking the place of a 160# rider, but again it's actually worse than that.
17% of what? Those angles could have been measured from horizontal and they would have been a different percentage. It's a meaningless number.


130mm hubs don't change the bracing angle from 126 hubs enough to matter. Other things, like elbows in vs out, cross pattern, etc change the bracing angle just as much. If a rim failed because it was built on a 130 hub, it would have failed on a 126 hub as well. You're not talking about anything real.
Kontact is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 07:31 PM
  #69  
dddd
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
 
dddd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,526

Bikes: Cheltenham-Pederson 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.

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 536 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
17% of what? Those angles could have been measured from horizontal and they would have been a different percentage. It's a meaningless number...

You don't have to use the angle at all, I'm not sure why you supplied them since just the ctr-to-flange dimensions that you supplied tell the whole story of how the driveside spoke's lateral support vector breaks down, which is much simpler to calculate. The 17 vs. 20mm that you quoted literally defines the decrease in the lateral support vector that the driveside spokes offer to the structure.

If you went all the way down to zero the wheel wouldn't work at all, but 17 out of 20mm is a huge compromise in wheel stiffness, and many times worse than that in terms of reliability.

Last edited by dddd; 03-24-18 at 07:34 PM.
dddd is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 08:00 PM
  #70  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by dddd View Post
You don't have to use the angle at all, I'm not sure why you supplied them since just the ctr-to-flange dimensions that you supplied tell the whole story of how the driveside spoke's lateral support vector breaks down, which is much simpler to calculate. The 17 vs. 20mm that you quoted literally defines the decrease in the lateral support vector that the driveside spokes offer to the structure.

If you went all the way down to zero the wheel wouldn't work at all, but 17 out of 20mm is a huge compromise in wheel stiffness, and many times worse than that in terms of reliability.
None of which changes the fact that 130mm hubs don't necessarily have bad brace angles, as I illustrated with examples.

Bad bracing angle is bad bracing angle, but it doesn't just magically happen because the wheel has a certain number of cogs on it.
Kontact is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 11:08 PM
  #71  
dddd
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
 
dddd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,526

Bikes: Cheltenham-Pederson 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.

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 536 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times in 19 Posts
You're stating the obvious at this point.


Nobody here has defined "bad" bracing angle, it's all relative to how strong and light of a wheel that you want to buy or build at any given price point.
dddd is offline  
Old 03-24-18, 11:46 PM
  #72  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by dddd View Post
You're stating the obvious at this point.


Nobody here has defined "bad" bracing angle, it's all relative to how strong and light of a wheel that you want to buy or build at any given price point.
I think it is pretty easy to look at all the possible right flange positions available and find the one that is the best and the one that is the worst.
Kontact is offline  
Old 03-25-18, 12:30 AM
  #73  
dddd
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
 
dddd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,526

Bikes: Cheltenham-Pederson 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.

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 536 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times in 19 Posts
I remember discovering how bad that the flange positioning was on the Helicomatic hubs, even with their peculiar use of only narrow cog spacing. I built conservatively enough with rim weights that even those wheels held up.
Light parts for light riders, and vice-versa, that and good tensioning.
dddd is offline  
Old 03-25-18, 06:42 AM
  #74  
63rickert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 20 Times in 17 Posts
Kontact

You started this thread because you wanted to know something about old bike parts. If your brain is stuck in the position where the only 'normal' is 2018 you won't ever know anything. If you really think a Lenton Sports would be better with a 12cog cassette have at it. If you are anxiously awaiting the opportunity to put Shimano 14speed and through axles on a Super Course you can dream about that. If you think I am going to book a visit to the Cronometro wind tunnel because I just can't go for a ride on my DL-1 before I know the drag numbers you are barking up the wrong tree.

Sure in late 80s we all laced whatever rim was at hand to 8speed 130 hubs and it worked. No I am not confusing spoke number and flange spacing. If I cite a number like 16.5 that is plainly not a spoke number. And yes it is possible to lace a Nemesis rim, vintage in a way, to modern hubs as long as you don't attempt low spoke count. But in vintage time we did not have to do backflips and consult charts and three websites before doing a wheelbuild. You laced them and that was it.

On someone else's point Shimano invented nothing. That is not what they do. Cassette hubs are around at least since 1938 with Bayliss-Wiley. There have been others. If you want axles that don't break make a strong axle. I have a Japanese no-name hub that is 1960-ish with a fat section to the axle like MaxiCar. People who made bike parts knew what to do to stop axle breakage. And you could always spend a nickel and get cromoly and everyone knew that.

Yes Shimano parts seemed super reliable in the 80s. For one thing they had minimum quality standards. And they paid attention to where the low end parts went. They went on cheap bikes that looked like cheap bikes. The Euros were always good at dressing up a bike with nice paint and finishing details and then throwing in some grade Z hardware. If you work in a little bike shop you see a lot of grade Z hardware and Shimano looked great. Then they set off an arms race. Resulting in the current state of affairs where there are no standards for anything, service parts cannot be had, every single spacer has to be researched and ordered online. Parts availability for my 60 and 70 year old bikes is better than disc brake parts from a year ago. That is what Shimano gave us. If you like that, live in the modern era. There is not a continuum between old bikes and new bikes. There is a sharply marked divide with the name Shimano all over it. And if you can't understand why a vintage guy would think that way forget about knowing vintage bikes.
63rickert is offline  
Old 03-25-18, 11:01 AM
  #75  
Kontact
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,608
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2145 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by 63rickert View Post
Kontact

You started this thread because you wanted to know something about old bike parts. If your brain is stuck in the position where the only 'normal' is 2018 you won't ever know anything. If you really think a Lenton Sports would be better with a 12cog cassette have at it. If you are anxiously awaiting the opportunity to put Shimano 14speed and through axles on a Super Course you can dream about that. If you think I am going to book a visit to the Cronometro wind tunnel because I just can't go for a ride on my DL-1 before I know the drag numbers you are barking up the wrong tree.

Sure in late 80s we all laced whatever rim was at hand to 8speed 130 hubs and it worked. No I am not confusing spoke number and flange spacing. If I cite a number like 16.5 that is plainly not a spoke number. And yes it is possible to lace a Nemesis rim, vintage in a way, to modern hubs as long as you don't attempt low spoke count. But in vintage time we did not have to do backflips and consult charts and three websites before doing a wheelbuild. You laced them and that was it.

On someone else's point Shimano invented nothing. That is not what they do. Cassette hubs are around at least since 1938 with Bayliss-Wiley. There have been others. If you want axles that don't break make a strong axle. I have a Japanese no-name hub that is 1960-ish with a fat section to the axle like MaxiCar. People who made bike parts knew what to do to stop axle breakage. And you could always spend a nickel and get cromoly and everyone knew that.

Yes Shimano parts seemed super reliable in the 80s. For one thing they had minimum quality standards. And they paid attention to where the low end parts went. They went on cheap bikes that looked like cheap bikes. The Euros were always good at dressing up a bike with nice paint and finishing details and then throwing in some grade Z hardware. If you work in a little bike shop you see a lot of grade Z hardware and Shimano looked great. Then they set off an arms race. Resulting in the current state of affairs where there are no standards for anything, service parts cannot be had, every single spacer has to be researched and ordered online. Parts availability for my 60 and 70 year old bikes is better than disc brake parts from a year ago. That is what Shimano gave us. If you like that, live in the modern era. There is not a continuum between old bikes and new bikes. There is a sharply marked divide with the name Shimano all over it. And if you can't understand why a vintage guy would think that way forget about knowing vintage bikes.
What are you reading? It is if you are corresponding with a parallel universe where my responses are completely different. I didn't write anything that would prompt the above work of fiction.


I suggest you try using the quote button so your "replies" are anchored to reality, or try using actual dimensions instead of how something feels in your hand.


Please stop responding as if you are responding to things i said about Shimano. I didn't say they invented anything, are easier to service, etc. You are inventing that stuff as you type.
Kontact is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.