LesterOfPuppets

It's CrMo steel.

Sixty Fiver

Nope... haven't seen it around here it all.

(It is steel btw)

triplebutted

Whoops, someone already posted a pix

LesterOfPuppets

No pix of it on a wheel yet, so...

mattface 

I probably wouldn't ever bother to put a cassette on a 120 spaced frame, certainly not on a 110 spaced frame. I don't think I ever insinuated I would, but it can be done without permanently damaging the frame, and certainly not every frame from before 1980 is a priceless jewel that mustn't be besmirched. I've got no problem "drewing" 1970s gas pipe if I have a reason to. It's better that tossing it in the scrap pile which is often the other option.

LesterOfPuppets

My mistake. I thought you were replying to sciencemonster's post that mentioned 40-60 year old bikes. Just wanted to point out that many of the bikes he's talking about would have been 120mm spacing. (edit: I imagine a few of those frames could handle spreading 10mm, especially those with bigger rear triangles.)

I spread my 27 or so year old Pinarello from 126 to 130 with no problems. I agree nothing to be concerned about there.

Carry on.

Sixty Fiver

I'd be drilling out the back on that...

mattface 

Oh yeah I guess he DID say 40-60 year old frames, but I missed that, because he was quoting me when he commented, and I certainly never said anything about how I love to put cassettes on antique bikes.

ctmullins 

IMHO - from a gearing perspective, cassette versus freewheel is a wash. You can mix-and-match sprockets using either system. The ratcheting mechanism (as far as I know) is largely the same, and can be equally robust either attached to the hub or attached to the sprocket cluster.

The real (only, in my book) benefit of cassette hubs is the drive-side bearing location. And, judging by the anecdotal evidence here, that is really only a problem at 130mm or larger OLD.

custermustache

I like ordinary bicycles, myself - I don't understand these newfangled "safety" bicycles. Ordinaries are better!

USAZorro

But if you spend 90% of your time riding in 16 and 17, they will wear out while many of the other cogs are hardly touched. You have no choice but to toss the entire thing when that happens. Simple and reliable? check. Economical? not so much.

Jose Mandez

For me, I think the point should be made that I spend most of my time riding in one or two different rear cogs, as USAZorro mentioned. That is why having fewer gears makes more sense for me...even if I bought Campy's new cassette with 11 jillion gears in the back, I would probably still only use two, maybe three of them most of the time (my commutes are mainly on long, flat rural roads). Ergo, I'd still be going through cassettes just as fast as I go through freewheels, and their increased gearing capacity would be wasted on me because I don't do very much accelerating and decelerating and uphill/downhill. (Yes, I could go through the trouble of putting new cogs on the cassettes to replace the worn ones, but the same could be said of some brands of freewheel that allow the user to do just this). In any event, whether freewheel or cassette, I'm just not highly motivated enough to be replacing individual cogs in a cogset.

I have little background in science or engineering to back up my opinion, but the SRAM Red just looks like there is something "wrong" with it that I just can't put my finger on...maybe its the fact that it's, well, hollow...

FuzzyDunlop

You say that now, but have you tried an 11 jillion gear cassette? I recently "upgraded" from a bike with brifters and an 8 speed cassette to a bike with downtube shifters and a 6 speed freewheel. I notice a big difference in the number of gears I use and the number of times I shift. I stay in the same gear for much longer and it takes a more extreme change in steepness to get me to shift. With an 8 speed set up, even with just two more speeds, it's so easy to shift that you find yourself wanted to tweak what gear you're in much more frequently.

Do I get to work any later as a result of running a 6 speed freewheel? Nah. But I notice the difference.

LesterOfPuppets

I like 8s also. 6 just ain't enough for me. Back when I was young and strong and 42x21 was almost a reasonable hill-climbing gear, then sure 6sp was great. Now that I'm old and fond of 28t cogs on the back, I don't like the big jumps in the 6sp.

I reckon if I was really chewin' up 16 and 17t cogs I'd pick one and get a single speed that had it. 3 speed IGH would be another good option.

elcraft

When I repack a freewheel, I completely fill the bearing races and pawl areas with grease- this provides little space for water or grit to enter the mechanism. The rest of the external areas are relatively clean and grease free; limiting the amount of surface "stickiness" that attracts more grit. With the "flush out and drizzle-in" method of cleaning/lubrication, I cannot completely fill the bearing races without leaving a significant residue of lubrication (on the rest of the surfaces) that attracts dirt and grit. The two methods of cleaning and lubrication, therefore, are not equal. The dis-assembly approach, IMHO, is superior. I recognize that Shimano probably prefers that one simply replaces a freewheel rather than "maintains" it; but I am so ingrained with the rebuild/refurbish mentality that it is dificult for me to accept that Freewheels are "disposable' by design.

pastorbobnlnh 

Are there any good diagrams for dis-assembly and re-assembly of freewheel bodies? How different are they from one manufacturer to another?

Amesja

Sooner or later, cassette or freewheel, the cogs are going to wear out -especially the favorite ones. There is no knowing if that will happen before or after a freewheel needs to be re-greased/lubed. I suspect that would depend mainly on how many miles/year a rider puts on it, as the lubrication inside the freewheel itself is probably more likely to fail due to age than because of the miles ridden.

noglider 

Freewheels are, in general, not as good, but they're good enough. Cassettes are nice to have but not essential for most riders.

Preparing for removing freewheel removal is MORE costly than for cassette removal because I need a tool for every style freewheel. Well, I did, because I collected them when there were so many different types on the road. I still buy them when I learn there's a type I don't have yet. So of course, I have a really big collection now.

I find the effort to be about the same. I rarely find either difficult. I guess I've done it enough times.

Prices of cassettes burn me up. There's less to them, and they cost much more. Part of the reason is the wide variety. There are 7 speeds, 8 speeds, UG, HG, Dura Ace, blah blah blah. So companies have to stock more types, etc. Still, I suspect they're making a lot of profit, too.

Most of my bikes have freewheels. The other thread about this prompted me to stock up on cassette hubs, for when I'll want them. I got two good deals on ebay just now. Of course, they'll probably end up being the wrong sizes or have number of spoke holes.

Another reason cassette hubs are preferable is that they reduce dishing a bit. Has no one else pointed this out? This definitely makes a wheel stronger and more durable!

Tom

bigbossman 

That's one of the big advantages of having the extra gears. I might not mean much riding 10 miles to work on flat ground, but covering a lot of miles and a few 1000' of climbing is a different story. Spend all day riding in either too big or to little a gear, and the cumulative fatigue really adds up.

I have never understood the argument that having a gear as closely matched as possible to the terrain you're on is somehow a disadvantage.

elcraft

My knowledge stems from "Glenn's Complete Bicycle Manual" from the 70's. I don't recall any significant differences between manufacturers other than the number of shims under the outer cone. - I have created a "sunTour rebuild kit" that has a bolt, washer and nut to secure the Freewheel tool to the freewheel body (for tightening the race back down) and a specially bent piece of Aluminum strip that holds the pawls in the closed position for reassembly without disturbing the bearings. The only additional advice I can give is to leave the freewheel mounted on the wheel when using a hammer and punch to loosen the reverse threaded cone that holds everything together. The outer cone is the adjustable part of a freewheel; they are not disimilar to a pedal in that the "inner" cone is fixed and only the outer cone can be disassembled. Only that the "spindle" is hollowed out and much shorter!
Freewwheels with a "splined" type remover allow the use of the remover tool (in a vise) to aid in the disassembly and re-assembly of the freewheel body- you push it in from behind. The Suntours ,with their "notched" bodies will not allow this technique. One must secure the remover tool to the body by a bolt, washers and nut and clamp it sideways into a vise. The pin spanners, made by Park Tools, seem to wander out of their holes when under the type of pressure that disassembly requires. I use a specially bent nail-set and a hammer to get the cone loosened (or for final tightening) and the pin spanner only as a "helper", during the process. Better instructions are at:
https://sheldonbrown.com/freewheels.html . I catch each set of bearings in a separate tuna can- I don't have to think about how many go where, in this situatuion. There are a lot of them; so be prepared! After I rebuild a freewheel, it runs nearly silently- the clicking is at a fraction of its normal volume. The heavy greasing probably will slow down things in extremely cold weather; but I don't ride under those conditions- YMMV. The newer Shimano freewheels don't seem to be designed to come apart (or at least, I haven't figured it out just yet).

FuzzyDunlop

Exactly. I'm all for "such-and-such is good enough for me," and I appreciate the value of keeping a vintage bike's original set up, riding it as it was intended, etc. Putting aside the obvious mechanical advantages of cassettes (axle strength, less wheel dish), it's fine if you think 10 speeds is unnecessary, but to say that it's a disadvantage is silly.

noglider 

Who says it's a bad idea? I have a 9-speed Ultegra bike with brifters (my Cross Check). I built it myself with mostly used stuff, but to me, it's modern. The drivetrain is actually 11 years old or so. It's very nice to be able to shift really easily and to move to a gear very close to the one I'm already in. I like it. But I don't need it. I haven't ridden that bike since the summer, and my other bikes are six speed. They're fine.

surreal

these gearing discussions tend to become battles between armies of strawmen, as very few of us ride the same sort of terrain upon the same sort of bikes for the same reasons, all while being in the same physical condition. For instance, what works for a racer on a roadie in the mountains may not work for a fat commuter on a city bike in the flatlands. That being said, as the description of the latter describes me to a tee, I use very few different gear combinations, regardless of the options a given bike offers. I often shift just to shift, and just to reaffirm my belief that everything is tuned properly. I used to ride FG exclusively, and i am happy that i have other options now. But, I do enjoy riding a single whenever I do, and i do find myself shifting the front nly for steep climbs, and shifting the rear between 2 (sometimes 3, on my 3x7) cgs in the back. But I'm fat, live on the coastal plain, and the only time i'm in a dreadful hurry is if i'm late to work.

As a heavier rider, though, i prefer the cassettes b/c I am terrified of bent axles. I just bought some Arvon freewheel hubs from 65er; they're purported to have ultra-beefy axles, so hopefully, they'll work out.

-rob

jan nikolajsen 

Late to the party, I know, but here goes:

Freewheel vs cassette.
Older brakes vs dual pivot
Friction vs index
Etc.

For me they are all grouped together leading to the same question: Is it a bike that must remain period correct (for whatever reason), or is it a 'retro roadie'?

I see little reason to put dual pivot brakes on a bike that otherwise have all 70's Campy bits, and so on. If it has a freewheel then it's because it goes with all the other coolness of doing it like it used to be.

I have both, and they all get ridden. The retro roadie a bit more, though.

mtnbke

There are professional wrenches who have absolutely destroyed their backs with trying to use a chain whip on a cassette. I encourage anyone who has a back to use a Pedros/Zinn Chain Vise instead.

That being said a it isn't the freewheel part of the freewheel/hub design that causes axles to bend/break, but the hub design. Phil Wood hubs do just fine even under incredible loads with freewheels. The problem is the hub design. I like cassette freehubs because they are mechanically simpler to work on. I don't like complicated parts, and disassembling a freewheel is a task in and of itself. Cassette freehubs are just simpler.

There are few "bad" cassettes, but other than an IRD or a Shimano freewheel, there are few good shifting freewheels.

I use Phil Wood hub and freewheel on my touring bike. I don't hate freewheels, but I sure the heck don't prefer 'em.