7 Speed freehub to use a 9 speed cassette: Wheel is dragging..
12-27-20, 03:41 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Berwyn PA
Posts: 6,347
Bikes: I hate bikes!
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Liked 551 Times
in
186 Posts
7 Speed freehub to use a 9 speed cassette: Wheel is dragging..
Helping a friend with a Kestrel 200 that he snagged inexpensively off of Craigslist.
It came with a full 105, 7 speed group and we were working to change the drivetrain over to 9 speed. He had a set of 9 speed bar-end shifters he wanted to use.
The issue is with the new 8/9/10 speed freehub body installed, the wheel drags when installed in the frame. Even with the quick release engaged at the absolute minimum, one cannot back pedal without the chain bunching up and while pedaling forward there is considerable drag.
The cranks are adjusted properly ( cup / cone style BB), the cups/cone in the freehub are also adjusted properly and have fresh grease. The new freehub & new 9 speed cassette are direct Shimano replacements.
The frame is 130mm spacing and I put a longer axle in to take into account for the new freehub body.
The new freehub body does not sit completely flush and a spacer needs to be removed to allow it to sit lower.
Old 7 speed freehub body
Spacer
105 rear hub
Hub without spacer
8/9/10 freehub installed
See the gap between hub body and shell?
There are also 2 rubber cone seals on each side of the hub. Might they be a factor?
Thoughts from the group**********
It came with a full 105, 7 speed group and we were working to change the drivetrain over to 9 speed. He had a set of 9 speed bar-end shifters he wanted to use.
The issue is with the new 8/9/10 speed freehub body installed, the wheel drags when installed in the frame. Even with the quick release engaged at the absolute minimum, one cannot back pedal without the chain bunching up and while pedaling forward there is considerable drag.
The cranks are adjusted properly ( cup / cone style BB), the cups/cone in the freehub are also adjusted properly and have fresh grease. The new freehub & new 9 speed cassette are direct Shimano replacements.
The frame is 130mm spacing and I put a longer axle in to take into account for the new freehub body.
The new freehub body does not sit completely flush and a spacer needs to be removed to allow it to sit lower.
Old 7 speed freehub body
Spacer
105 rear hub
Hub without spacer
8/9/10 freehub installed
See the gap between hub body and shell?
There are also 2 rubber cone seals on each side of the hub. Might they be a factor?
Thoughts from the group**********
Last edited by fender1; 12-27-20 at 04:20 PM.
12-27-20, 04:52 PM
#2
Full Member
Appears to be an incompatibility of the new freehub body and the hub shell. Shimano has a few different variations of how deep the freehub body is. Most are reasonably flush in back of the freehub body and some have deeper protrusion. This body appears to be too deep for the shell. Is the last picture posted with the spacer? and is this still dragging?
What model hub is this new freehub body designed for? Not sure what you mean by "direct Shimano replacement" since Shimano didn't really ever have a 9/10 speed part for the FH-1055. They had a 8 speed body but that was really short and didn't always work well with all 9/10 speed cassettes.
Otherwise nice frame, seems to be in great condition.
What model hub is this new freehub body designed for? Not sure what you mean by "direct Shimano replacement" since Shimano didn't really ever have a 9/10 speed part for the FH-1055. They had a 8 speed body but that was really short and didn't always work well with all 9/10 speed cassettes.
Otherwise nice frame, seems to be in great condition.
12-27-20, 05:09 PM
#3
Bianchi Goddess
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Shady Pines Retirement Fort Wayne, In
Posts: 29,261
Bikes: Too many to list here check my signature.
Mentioned: 175 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2728 Post(s)
Liked 2,211 Times
in
1,232 Posts
Are you sure the chain isn't rubbing on the inside of the dropout?
As long as everything is assembled and adjusted correctly and the freehub body isn't binding when you turn it by hand it should not bind in the frame. Is the big cog hitting the spokes?
As long as everything is assembled and adjusted correctly and the freehub body isn't binding when you turn it by hand it should not bind in the frame. Is the big cog hitting the spokes?
__________________
“One morning you wake up, the girl is gone, the bikes are gone, all that's left behind is a pair of old tires and a tube of tubular glue, all squeezed out"
Sugar "Kane" Kowalczyk
“One morning you wake up, the girl is gone, the bikes are gone, all that's left behind is a pair of old tires and a tube of tubular glue, all squeezed out"
Sugar "Kane" Kowalczyk
Last edited by Bianchigirll; 12-27-20 at 05:12 PM.
12-27-20, 05:17 PM
#4
Used to be Conspiratemus
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hamilton ON Canada
Posts: 1,504
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked 245 Times
in
163 Posts
It seems there is more than one problem here.
Impaired coasting = failure of the ratchet mechanism in the freehub. Dollars to donuts, absence of that spacer is causing something that moves to rub against something that doesn't, that the spacer was meant to keep from touching. Likely some part of the freehub body against the outer face of the hub shell...not the edge where the gap is.
Excess drag in the forward direction with pedaling = something other than the ratchet. If not tire against frame or rim against brake, too-tight axle cones would be the first obvious thought. But they have to be really tight to drag a pedaled wheel. The little rubber cone seals do add to a bit of finger drag and make it hard to hit the sweet spot during adjustment. But they don't add detectable drag when pedaling because the angular momentum of the wheel swamps the seal drag. So I suspect removing a part that's meant to be there is likely the culprit for that, too. Granted from my understanding of how these hubs are made I don't see how the loss of the spacer would lead to too much axle resistance.
Before you installed the wheel in the bike, after the transplant, did the axle spin smoothly in the hub, and did the freehub ratchet click-click-click smoothly when you turned it backwards by hand?
Whatever, suggest putting the spacer back in and rechecking for function. If the resulting gap between hub shell and freehub body is unsatisfactory, you are out of luck.
The original freehub is a Uniglide, btw. Do you know if Hyperglides are even meant to be swappable for Uniglides? I don't. But I know that even Hyperglide for Hyperglide (like going from 7 to 9) doesn't always work well. They'll bolt on OK but there sometimes is a gap that is unacceptable. (Wider than the one you show, without your spacer.)
Impaired coasting = failure of the ratchet mechanism in the freehub. Dollars to donuts, absence of that spacer is causing something that moves to rub against something that doesn't, that the spacer was meant to keep from touching. Likely some part of the freehub body against the outer face of the hub shell...not the edge where the gap is.
Excess drag in the forward direction with pedaling = something other than the ratchet. If not tire against frame or rim against brake, too-tight axle cones would be the first obvious thought. But they have to be really tight to drag a pedaled wheel. The little rubber cone seals do add to a bit of finger drag and make it hard to hit the sweet spot during adjustment. But they don't add detectable drag when pedaling because the angular momentum of the wheel swamps the seal drag. So I suspect removing a part that's meant to be there is likely the culprit for that, too. Granted from my understanding of how these hubs are made I don't see how the loss of the spacer would lead to too much axle resistance.
Before you installed the wheel in the bike, after the transplant, did the axle spin smoothly in the hub, and did the freehub ratchet click-click-click smoothly when you turned it backwards by hand?
Whatever, suggest putting the spacer back in and rechecking for function. If the resulting gap between hub shell and freehub body is unsatisfactory, you are out of luck.
The original freehub is a Uniglide, btw. Do you know if Hyperglides are even meant to be swappable for Uniglides? I don't. But I know that even Hyperglide for Hyperglide (like going from 7 to 9) doesn't always work well. They'll bolt on OK but there sometimes is a gap that is unacceptable. (Wider than the one you show, without your spacer.)
Likes For conspiratemus1:
12-27-20, 05:30 PM
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Berwyn PA
Posts: 6,347
Bikes: I hate bikes!
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Liked 551 Times
in
186 Posts
Originally Posted by conspiratemus1
It seems there is more than one problem here.
Impaired coasting = failure of the ratchet mechanism in the freehub. Dollars to donuts, absence of that spacer is causing something that moves to rub against something that doesn't, that the spacer was meant to keep from touching. Likely some part of the freehub body against the outer face of the hub shell...not the edge where the gap is.
Excess drag in the forward direction with pedaling = something other than the ratchet. If not tire against frame or rim against brake, too-tight axle cones would be the first obvious thought. But they have to be really tight to drag a pedaled wheel. The little rubber cone seals do add to a bit of finger drag and make it hard to hit the sweet spot during adjustment. But they don't add detectable drag when pedaling because the angular momentum of the wheel swamps the seal drag. So I suspect removing a part that's meant to be there is likely the culprit for that, too. Granted from my understanding of how these hubs are made I don't see how the loss of the spacer would lead to too much axle resistance.
Before you installed the wheel in the bike, after the transplant, did the axle spin smoothly in the hub, and did the freehub ratchet click-click-click smoothly when you turned it backwards by hand?
Whatever, suggest putting the spacer back in and rechecking for function. If the resulting gap between hub shell and freehub body is unsatisfactory, you are out of luck.
The original freehub is a Uniglide, btw. Do you know if Hyperglides are even meant to be swappable for Uniglides? I don't. But I know that even Hyperglide for Hyperglide (like going from 7 to 9) doesn't always work well. They'll bolt on OK but there sometimes is a gap that is unacceptable. (Wider than the one you show, without your spacer.)
Impaired coasting = failure of the ratchet mechanism in the freehub. Dollars to donuts, absence of that spacer is causing something that moves to rub against something that doesn't, that the spacer was meant to keep from touching. Likely some part of the freehub body against the outer face of the hub shell...not the edge where the gap is.
Excess drag in the forward direction with pedaling = something other than the ratchet. If not tire against frame or rim against brake, too-tight axle cones would be the first obvious thought. But they have to be really tight to drag a pedaled wheel. The little rubber cone seals do add to a bit of finger drag and make it hard to hit the sweet spot during adjustment. But they don't add detectable drag when pedaling because the angular momentum of the wheel swamps the seal drag. So I suspect removing a part that's meant to be there is likely the culprit for that, too. Granted from my understanding of how these hubs are made I don't see how the loss of the spacer would lead to too much axle resistance.
Before you installed the wheel in the bike, after the transplant, did the axle spin smoothly in the hub, and did the freehub ratchet click-click-click smoothly when you turned it backwards by hand?
Whatever, suggest putting the spacer back in and rechecking for function. If the resulting gap between hub shell and freehub body is unsatisfactory, you are out of luck.
The original freehub is a Uniglide, btw. Do you know if Hyperglides are even meant to be swappable for Uniglides? I don't. But I know that even Hyperglide for Hyperglide (like going from 7 to 9) doesn't always work well. They'll bolt on OK but there sometimes is a gap that is unacceptable. (Wider than the one you show, without your spacer.)
12-27-20, 05:57 PM
#6
Blamester
Originally Posted by fender1
Thanks. The wheel spins fine without the quick release engaged. Sooo, cones to tight maybe?
And you probably didn't need the new axle the old one would likely work and engage the dropouts perfectly fine if a couple of mill short each side.
How does it spin installed with the skewer open?
12-27-20, 06:06 PM
#7
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 8,733
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.
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1368 Post(s)
Liked 926 Times
in
647 Posts
KCT1986 has it right, and I've experienced this exact sort of issue many times over the years.
The problem is that there really is no database or critical specification provided by Shimano that would inform as to which freehub bodies are compatible with which hubshells.
Most recently, I tried upgrading an Ultegra 64xx 8s hub with a titanium body from a 7700 hub, but had the exact sort of problem you are having here.
I always stick with experimenting only with freehub parts that I have on hand, so no great loss when my intentions are foiled by another case of incompatibility.
The problem is that there really is no database or critical specification provided by Shimano that would inform as to which freehub bodies are compatible with which hubshells.
Most recently, I tried upgrading an Ultegra 64xx 8s hub with a titanium body from a 7700 hub, but had the exact sort of problem you are having here.
I always stick with experimenting only with freehub parts that I have on hand, so no great loss when my intentions are foiled by another case of incompatibility.
12-27-20, 06:12 PM
#8
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 8,733
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.
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1368 Post(s)
Liked 926 Times
in
647 Posts
Another issue with swapping freehub bodies is incompatibility of the axle and sealing hardware of one hub with any different FH body.
So I always keep the original axle hardware and freehub body together when attempting to swap the body to a different hubshell, else the spacing ends up all wrong and the sealing mechanisms don't come close to working as intended.
Shimano did such a good job of optimizing all of the lateral spacings while maintaining great wheel-dish and keeping the smallest cog close to the dropout, so this leaves no tolerance for making changes in most cases, unless you keep the parts-swapping within the same (64xx, etc.) product family AND keep all the original axle and sealing hardware together with the freehub body that you want to use.
There are of course a large number of product families from Shimano over the years, so there are a lot of fh swap cases that can be found to work just fine, but you have to research these situations yourself as there is no known database of application info afaik.
So I always keep the original axle hardware and freehub body together when attempting to swap the body to a different hubshell, else the spacing ends up all wrong and the sealing mechanisms don't come close to working as intended.
Shimano did such a good job of optimizing all of the lateral spacings while maintaining great wheel-dish and keeping the smallest cog close to the dropout, so this leaves no tolerance for making changes in most cases, unless you keep the parts-swapping within the same (64xx, etc.) product family AND keep all the original axle and sealing hardware together with the freehub body that you want to use.
There are of course a large number of product families from Shimano over the years, so there are a lot of fh swap cases that can be found to work just fine, but you have to research these situations yourself as there is no known database of application info afaik.
Last edited by dddd; 12-27-20 at 06:22 PM.
Likes For dddd:
12-27-20, 07:31 PM
#9
Used to be Conspiratemus
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hamilton ON Canada
Posts: 1,504
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked 245 Times
in
163 Posts
Originally Posted by fender1
Thanks. The wheel spins fine without the quick release engaged. Sooo, cones to tight maybe?
It's true that tightening the QR fully will make the cones a tiny bit tighter but this will not be detectable in pedaling. (To prevent premature wear of the cones you're supposed to adjust them so there is minimal play with the locknuts tightened. Then when you clamp down the QR the play is taken up and the cones are then just right. But even if your cones are "too tight for perfect", you won't feel drag from pedaling. You can only feel this by twiddling the axle with your fingers.) Besides, you said in your OP that the wheel dragged even with the QR barely closed.
Something is rubbing that isn't supposed to, and likely wouldn't if you put the old Uniglide freehub back on and developed a Plan B for your friend.
12-27-20, 09:15 PM
#10
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 8,733
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.
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1368 Post(s)
Liked 926 Times
in
647 Posts
I'm near-certain that a correct axle assembly and freehub body for this application can be sourced from this 1055/56 series of 8-speed freehub.
Usually a discarded bent wheel is the best source of such parts. I would never buy these kind of parts new, since a complete used wheelset would cost about the same.
Usually a discarded bent wheel is the best source of such parts. I would never buy these kind of parts new, since a complete used wheelset would cost about the same.
12-28-20, 10:13 AM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Berwyn PA
Posts: 6,347
Bikes: I hate bikes!
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Liked 551 Times
in
186 Posts
Thanks everyone for replies/help. Now I know what I need to look for. Might anyone have the 105, 8 speed internals they would be willing to part with?
12-28-20, 01:13 PM
#12
Full Member
Based on the way the freehub body looks in the OP's pics, the problem is with the new freehub body. In the pic below of the FH-6500, the protrusion is deeper than what is normal for the OP's hub shell. My guess is that the replacement body is similar to this and when installed without the spacer, the area marked by the arrow is dragging on the hub body.
Compare to the pic of the FH-4500 body, that has a shorter protrusion which is similar to the original body. This style is very common on many Shimano freehubs.
The cone & seals may be an issue, but most Shimano hubs use a similar setup. If the original hub uses the common rubber seal ring, many of the 9/10 speed bodies are compatible.
My take is that with a more suitable freehub body the hub should be fine.
Compare to the pic of the FH-4500 body, that has a shorter protrusion which is similar to the original body. This style is very common on many Shimano freehubs.
The cone & seals may be an issue, but most Shimano hubs use a similar setup. If the original hub uses the common rubber seal ring, many of the 9/10 speed bodies are compatible.
My take is that with a more suitable freehub body the hub should be fine.
12-28-20, 03:00 PM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Berwyn PA
Posts: 6,347
Bikes: I hate bikes!
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Liked 551 Times
in
186 Posts
Originally Posted by KCT1986
Based on the way the freehub body looks in the OP's pics, the problem is with the new freehub body. In the pic below of the FH-6500, the protrusion is deeper than what is normal for the OP's hub shell. My guess is that the replacement body is similar to this and when installed without the spacer, the area marked by the arrow is dragging on the hub body.
Compare to the pic of the FH-4500 body, that has a shorter protrusion which is similar to the original body. This style is very common on many Shimano freehubs.
The cone & seals may be an issue, but most Shimano hubs use a similar setup. If the original hub uses the common rubber seal ring, many of the 9/10 speed bodies are compatible.
My take is that with a more suitable freehub body the hub should be fine.
Compare to the pic of the FH-4500 body, that has a shorter protrusion which is similar to the original body. This style is very common on many Shimano freehubs.
The cone & seals may be an issue, but most Shimano hubs use a similar setup. If the original hub uses the common rubber seal ring, many of the 9/10 speed bodies are compatible.
My take is that with a more suitable freehub body the hub should be fine.
12-28-20, 09:55 PM
#14
Garage tetris expert
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 622
Bikes: yes
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked 358 Times
in
188 Posts
Originally Posted by conspiratemus1
The original freehub is a Uniglide, btw. Do you know if Hyperglides are even meant to be swappable for Uniglides? I don't. But I know that even Hyperglide for Hyperglide (like going from 7 to 9) doesn't always work well. They'll bolt on OK but there sometimes is a gap that is unacceptable. (Wider than the one you show, without your spacer.)
I’ve also successfully replaced old 7-speed UG bodies from 1050 and 600 hubs with crossover UG/HG hub bodies, with no running problems at all.
I did however retain all spacers with their hubs.
Of course, this doesn’t speak to OP’s issue with the 9-speed body. I would suspect the missing spacer as the likely culprit.
Likes For panzerwagon:
