Definitely the most questionable drillium I've seen. Can you imagine trying to lace these up?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/CAMPAGNOLO-N...item4609e9d190

Oh, I've seen far worse. I'd ride these. They're not reducing the material in the high stress areas.

You're right about questioning such seemingly overzealous drilliumization of such components like those hubs. The driller seems to have really gone literally "overbored" on them.......I personally might not ride those, but they could still make out to be nice blinggy Christmas ornaments on a tree...
JMOs,...........but maybe DD can give us a better judgement on them.

Chombi

Where would the high stress areas be? At the spoke holes themselves?

What, you folks don't know a 64 hole tandem hubset when you see one? über strong, obviously!

I put this up in case it disappears when the auction closes(like a cl listing, not really sure about it)

These look similar to the Schwinn "goof" save hubs, where someone countersunk the original spoke holes and Schwinn to save them had new holes drilled in-between to become the revised spoke locations.

Both hubs never been ridden and only the front laced up at one time, per the eBay auction ad, might give us a good hint how much the owner trusted them him/herself......

Chombi

Ok, I'd ride the drilled Nittto bars from last week's thread...these...eh....maybe not.

I can't remember if it was a pair but I know I did have front wheel with a hub like that.

Yeah, that's what I thought they were until I noticed the hole in the webbing. Maybe they started out as such? Except that the front is a Pista shell with no oil hole.

I don't like the asymetrical hole in the webbing. From a purely aesthetic point of view I would have used two holes or centered the one. A few look a little off-center as well.

I think they're the Schwinn hubs, too - that's a classic part-save story. And I'm with Otis on the sloppy additional drillings in the webbing; maybe he was trying to keep the holes from being too close to the oval cutout's edges. While that would be a smart idea, the execution was a bit iffy.

Since I've never drilled a hub - LF or HF - I really have nothing more to contribute. Carry on

DD

Just don't lace 'em radial.

Thanks for posting that pic, Calstar. Wish I knew how to do that.

Yeah, pretty sloppy job on some of the holes. I think it looks lousy anyway. Perhaps if they had used holes smaller than the spoke holes in between. Maybe laced up it would look different but ....eh....not me.

I would lace and ride those, but I never will because they look terrible.

You don't think that treatment seriously weakened the flanges? I dunno. Just askin.

( I guess there'd be one way to find out )

I really don't know. I guess I really just don't care enough. They're pretty lame.

i have some drilled rings and love them. but drillium elsewhere often has the too common tendency to apear terribly cheap, even when done orderly. it often approaches 'ugly,' like the machinist's gone mad.

probably in the minority on this. which normally suits me.

I don't think that the extra holes will seriously compromize the flange strength (but I don't know for sure). What I do worry about is that the wheelbuilder will have to be careful to properly set the spokes in the right holes (i.e. in the "non-drilliumed" factory spoke holes).

These are owner-modified copies of the high-flange Paramount hub drillium - the secondary flange holes (not those that the spokes fit into) are smaller than the Schwinn-modified version of the same hubs:



Someone more likely than not wished to do a build with these hubs and couldn't locate an original set.

As for strength, they're no better or worse than the Schwinn variant; probably better, due to the smaller secondary hole. Unlike C-Record, I've yet to hear of one of these exploding while being ridden.

-Kurt

The typical flange failure (in crossed spokes patterns) occurs when stress cracks appear at the hole and propogate between adjacent holes and to the outside of the flange. Examination of hubs starting to fail suggests the initial crack radiates from the hole to the outside of the flange and is rougly tangential to the spoke orientation. Once this propogates, the crack between adjacent holes forms. This indacates that the critical and more highly stressed area is the material between the hole and outside flange, which has not been altered in the subject hubs.

Of course, it is possible to reduce the spacing between holes to the point where it will fail first. Brandt suggests a rule of thumb of 1.5X the spoke hole diameter as the amount of material between adjacent spoke holes. However, in a standard hub there are spokes in adjacent holes pulling towards each other, so half the material betwen the holes (i.e. 0.75X hole diameter) is carrying the load for an individual spoke. The subject hubs appear to have at least this much material between a spoke occupied hole and the adjacent unoccupied hole.

The other potential area for failure are the six inner holes. The spacing between these holes and any spoke hole is not less than that between the factory's oval holes and any spoke hole, so this should not be a concern. Also the total mimimum distance between these holes and the two adjacent oval holes appears to be equal to the miniumum distance between two adjcent oval holes, so there should be no concern from this perspective either.

Overall, I can't see any case for concern, unless there are some holes that are significantly off location and not readily apparent in the photos. The basic concept appears sound.