Is there any advantage to a free wheel vs. a free hub/cassette?
10-22-08 | 09:03 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 622
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, WA
Bikes: 2006 LeMond Croix de Fer, 2005 Kona Dew Deluxe
Is there any advantage to a free wheel vs. a free hub/cassette?
Aside from a period correct restoration or nostalgic reasons, if one were to build a wheel set for a 30 year old road bike, is there any reason to choose a free wheel?
I'm a classic/vintage newbie, but seems using a free hub is the smarter choice. My reasons:
1) availability of modern parts (hubs and cassettes)
2) bikes from that era use friction shifters, so within reason most modern cassettes will work
3) bikes from that era are most always steel, and the drops outs may be cold set (or just stretched 4mm each time) to accommodate a modern 130mm axle.
Obviously there are great deals to be had on NOS free wheels and hubs, but I'm curious if there are other benefits.
Thanks for any insight.
-Sean
I'm a classic/vintage newbie, but seems using a free hub is the smarter choice. My reasons:
1) availability of modern parts (hubs and cassettes)
2) bikes from that era use friction shifters, so within reason most modern cassettes will work
3) bikes from that era are most always steel, and the drops outs may be cold set (or just stretched 4mm each time) to accommodate a modern 130mm axle.
Obviously there are great deals to be had on NOS free wheels and hubs, but I'm curious if there are other benefits.
Thanks for any insight.
-Sean
10-22-08 | 09:13 PM
#2
Insane Bicycle Mechanic
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,163
Likes: 1,128
From: other Vancouver
Aside from a period correct restoration or nostalgic reasons, if one were to build a wheel set for a 30 year old road bike, is there any reason to choose a free wheel?
I'm a classic/vintage newbie, but seems using a free hub is the smarter choice. My reasons:
1) availability of modern parts (hubs and cassettes)
2) bikes from that era use friction shifters, so within reason most modern cassettes will work
3) bikes from that era are most always steel, and the drops outs may be cold set (or just stretched 4mm each time) to accommodate a modern 130mm axle.
Obviously there are great deals to be had on NOS free wheels and hubs, but I'm curious if there are other benefits.
Thanks for any insight.
-Sean
I'm a classic/vintage newbie, but seems using a free hub is the smarter choice. My reasons:
1) availability of modern parts (hubs and cassettes)
2) bikes from that era use friction shifters, so within reason most modern cassettes will work
3) bikes from that era are most always steel, and the drops outs may be cold set (or just stretched 4mm each time) to accommodate a modern 130mm axle.
Obviously there are great deals to be had on NOS free wheels and hubs, but I'm curious if there are other benefits.
Thanks for any insight.
-Sean
Also, the freewheel has more bearings. This makes them theoretically more durable, but cassette bodies are still available for common hubs and changing them out is as easy as changing a freewheel. I've only had one cassette body wear out, and that was after being abused.
__________________
Jeff Wills
Comcast nuked my web page. It will return soon..
Jeff Wills
Comcast nuked my web page. It will return soon..
10-22-08 | 09:37 PM
#4
RE******
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 119
Likes: 2
There is no advantage to freewheel over freehub. The freehub design improves on so many things and is really one of the great innovations in cycling in the past twenty five or so years.
However, if you've got an old bike and old components, stick with a freewheel. If you're going to use your five or six speed components on a freehub wheel, you're going to have to custom build yourself a cassette from assembled cogs, and then deal with spacing problems from using too few cogs on a cassette hub. None of that is a huge deal, but it's not worth dealing with if you have a working freewheel, or can get a working one for dirt cheap on eBay or in the back room of any bike shop.
If you're planning on upgrading to modern STI or other compemporary components, then a freehub will be your only option, and asking is a moot point.
However, if you've got an old bike and old components, stick with a freewheel. If you're going to use your five or six speed components on a freehub wheel, you're going to have to custom build yourself a cassette from assembled cogs, and then deal with spacing problems from using too few cogs on a cassette hub. None of that is a huge deal, but it's not worth dealing with if you have a working freewheel, or can get a working one for dirt cheap on eBay or in the back room of any bike shop.
If you're planning on upgrading to modern STI or other compemporary components, then a freehub will be your only option, and asking is a moot point.
Last edited by bonechiller; 10-22-08 at 09:41 PM.
10-22-08 | 10:20 PM
#5
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
If you upgrade to modern 9 or 10 speed freehub you can still use your friction shifters (bar end or DT) and derailleurs if they spread wide enough, but you will have to use a narrow chain which will get dropped between chain rings of older cranks.
To go modern you need at the very least, cassete (and wheel to mount it to), 9/10 chain, crank for 9/10 speed, and appropriate bottom bracket for the crank.
To go modern you need at the very least, cassete (and wheel to mount it to), 9/10 chain, crank for 9/10 speed, and appropriate bottom bracket for the crank.
10-22-08 | 11:16 PM
#6
Randomhead
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 25,930
Likes: 4,825
From: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
A slight advantage: if you have two (or more) freewheels with different ratios, the freewheel stays together when you swap it out. Every cassette I have ever had came apart- a separate cog, lockring, spacer or what-have-you. The small parts always seem to get lost in the bottom of the extra parts bin.
If you upgrade to modern 9 or 10 speed freehub you can still use your friction shifters (bar end or DT) and derailleurs if they spread wide enough, but you will have to use a narrow chain which will get dropped between chain rings of older cranks.
To go modern you need at the very least, cassete (and wheel to mount it to), 9/10 chain, crank for 9/10 speed, and appropriate bottom bracket for the crank.
To go modern you need at the very least, cassete (and wheel to mount it to), 9/10 chain, crank for 9/10 speed, and appropriate bottom bracket for the crank.
10-23-08 | 07:13 AM
#7
Palmer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,165
Likes: 2,271
From: Parts Unknown
Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl
10-23-08 | 08:05 AM
#8
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 1
I'm running 9 speeds on my '80 Italian Campy racing bike. I have a shimano derailleur and shimano rear cassette with the original Campy Super Record cranks. It works ok, the only issue is that the campy DT shifters have to go almost 180 degrees to get into the lowest cog in the back.
Old Chainrings, New Chains
There is a lot of confusion about the compatibility of narrow 9- and 10-speed chains with older cranksets. Shimano says you should replace the inner chainring(s) with specially designated 9- or 10-speed ones, but then they're all too eager to sell you stuff, whether you need it or not.
These chainrings have the teeth slightly farther to the right than the older chainrings to work a little better with the narrower chains. There is no difference whatever in the crank spiders.
The manufacturers also concerned about clueless users. The worst-case scenario is that you will be riding along with the bike in its highest gear (large front, small rear) and then for some bizarre reason shift down in front before downshifting in the back. (There is no shift pattern in which it is reasonable to shift in this sequence.) If you do shift this way, there's a small chance that the chain might "skate" over the edges of the teeth for maybe half a turn.
In practice this "problem" almost never materializes. Many, many cyclists are using 9- and 10-speed chains with older cranksets and having no problems whatever.
There is a lot of confusion about the compatibility of narrow 9- and 10-speed chains with older cranksets. Shimano says you should replace the inner chainring(s) with specially designated 9- or 10-speed ones, but then they're all too eager to sell you stuff, whether you need it or not.
These chainrings have the teeth slightly farther to the right than the older chainrings to work a little better with the narrower chains. There is no difference whatever in the crank spiders.
The manufacturers also concerned about clueless users. The worst-case scenario is that you will be riding along with the bike in its highest gear (large front, small rear) and then for some bizarre reason shift down in front before downshifting in the back. (There is no shift pattern in which it is reasonable to shift in this sequence.) If you do shift this way, there's a small chance that the chain might "skate" over the edges of the teeth for maybe half a turn.
In practice this "problem" almost never materializes. Many, many cyclists are using 9- and 10-speed chains with older cranksets and having no problems whatever.
10-23-08 | 08:11 AM
#9
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 15
From: Columbus, Ohio
Bikes: Rivendell A.Homer Hilsen, Paramount P13, (4) Falcon bicycles, Mondia Special, Rodriguez Tandem
It's much easier to find 5 speed freewheels than 5 speed cassettes. Riders of older bikes don't like having their choices all cluttered up with tiny incremental gear differences that are better suited to delicate finely tuned modern riders who feel the need to stay inside their max hp rpm range by changing gears constantly with every slight change in gradient or puff of wind instead of just man-upping and just staying in the same gear because they can.
10-23-08 | 08:39 AM
#10
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 622
Likes: 1
From: Auburn, WA
Bikes: 2006 LeMond Croix de Fer, 2005 Kona Dew Deluxe
I was primarily asking from a wheel building perspective. If I'm going to the expense and time of lacing up a set of wheels, I like to be practical about component choices.
10-23-08 | 10:58 AM
#11
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 529
Likes: 31
It's much easier to find 5 speed freewheels than 5 speed cassettes. Riders of older bikes don't like having their choices all cluttered up with tiny incremental gear differences that are better suited to delicate finely tuned modern riders who feel the need to stay inside their max hp rpm range by changing gears constantly with every slight change in gradient or puff of wind instead of just man-upping and just staying in the same gear because they can.
To the OP: I've munched freehub bodies because the pawls have so much force going through them operating inside such a small diameter shell, while FWs typically have at least twice the radius for the pawls. The conditions, however, were extreme: 24 ring 34 cog offroad with the tire slipping and grabbing with the available traction. And, if I had a conventional wheel on that bike, I'd be replacing bent axles weekly. Overall, the advantage would go to freehubs IMO.
10-23-08 | 08:03 PM
#12
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 265
Likes: 1
From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
And on a tandem, the torque of two riders toiling away in low gear drives a freewheel on to the hub *really* tight. Freehubs win hands down in tandem applications, even for down-tube shifter retrogrouches like me.
10-23-08 | 08:09 PM
#13
Old biker
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: Radium Springs, NM
Bikes: Custom Cammack touring road and 1987 Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo
I've been riding bikes with freewheels for nearly 40 years and have only worn out one. I use only Campy Record hubs and have NEVER bent an axle. I'm not sure how you would do that. I see no reason to change to a freehub on an old bike.
10-23-08 | 08:20 PM
#14
Passista
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,258
Likes: 1,218
Bikes: 1998 Pinarello Asolo, 1992 KHS Montaña pro, 1980 Raleigh DL-1, IGH Hybrid, IGH Utility
It's much easier to find 5 speed freewheels than 5 speed cassettes. Riders of older bikes don't like having their choices all cluttered up with tiny incremental gear differences that are better suited to delicate finely tuned modern riders who feel the need to stay inside their max hp rpm range by changing gears constantly with every slight change in gradient or puff of wind instead of just man-upping and just staying in the same gear because they can.
10-23-08 | 08:25 PM
#15
Bike Junkie
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,625
Likes: 40
From: South of Raleigh, North of New Hill, East of Harris Lake, NC
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Specialized Roubaix, Giant OCR-C, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR, Stumpjumper Comp, 88 & 92Nishiki Ariel, 87 Centurion Ironman, 92 Paramount, 84 Nishiki Medalist
I have not seen one of the advantages of a freehub posted, or I missed it. But, here goes, freehubs have their bearings more toward the outer edge of the axle, but freewheels have the right wheel bearings more inboard. Therefore freewheels are more prone to bent axles. I've read this before, but I have to add, I'm just over the clyde limit at 210lbs. I used to ride a six speed freewheel set up on a mountain bike on trails and I used to jump logs and never bent an axle. I've seen a few bent axles on bikes I've worked on, and they were all associated with freewheels, none with freehubs. But these bikes must have seen way more abuse than I dished out, considering I couldn't bend an axle.
__________________
Roccobike BF Official Thread Terminator
Roccobike BF Official Thread Terminator
10-23-08 | 09:10 PM
#16
Vintage French Bike Fan
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR
Bikes: Peugeot UO-8, Peugeot 80's 12 spd
Aesthetically freewheels get you a much nicer looking rear hub since you don't have such a chunky center section. Freehubs are superior in supporting the axle and in the location of the bearings on the drive side but they look crummy. Getting one that is polished is also tough unless you want to spring for Phil stuff. And those still have kind of a chunky middle section. Just MHO. I'm not saying aesthetics should outweigh function, I'm just pointing it out.
Karl
Karl
10-23-08 | 09:19 PM
#17
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
From: yreka, ca
Bikes: like 15. my favorite a 1951 schwinn spitfire cruiser. also have a 1959 amf roadmaster, 1962 jch deluxe cruiser among others.
i am old school as well and like the durability of the freewheel. and i too agree that you don't need anymore than 5 out back. most my rides are ss cruisers and i am proud to stand on big hills and i say +1 to manning up old school.
10-24-08 | 06:59 AM
#18
Palmer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,165
Likes: 2,271
From: Parts Unknown
Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl
tcs
10-24-08 | 07:06 AM
#19
Palmer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,165
Likes: 2,271
From: Parts Unknown
Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl
So a freewheel has an inner body, and outer body, bearing races, bearing balls, a ratchet mechanism and the cogs and spacers.
A cassette is just the cogs and spacers.
From an industrial engineering view it seems like a cassette should be about a third or maybe a half of the cost of a comparable freewheel - but alas, they aren't!
tcs
A cassette is just the cogs and spacers.
From an industrial engineering view it seems like a cassette should be about a third or maybe a half of the cost of a comparable freewheel - but alas, they aren't!
tcs
10-24-08 | 07:09 AM
#20
Palmer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,165
Likes: 2,271
From: Parts Unknown
Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl
tcs
