Boyd's new hubs!
03-23-15, 08:31 AM
#76
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
If he is going to market his hubs that way, he doesn't need to prove anything. There are plenty of products in the biking world marketed without scientific, peer reviewed studies.
In fact, I would say it's on the person saying his claims are b.s. to show studies showing it's b.s.
Marketing is funny that way.
In fact, I would say it's on the person saying his claims are b.s. to show studies showing it's b.s.
Marketing is funny that way.
03-23-15, 08:33 AM
#77
Boyd Cycling owner
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
Here in lies the simplicity of your thinking. And will add, I don't want to go into the weeds with you because it won't be pretty and I believe your thread should be a celebration of your new Eternity hubs. You don't have data. But what you write is wrong and your comments support your misguided analogy. A spin test has NOTHING to do with bearing drag on the bike in real life conditions. NOTHING. Any more than spinning a crank on a bicycle without a chain which may expose bearing seal drag but the reality under load is the superiority of the bearing interface may offer much less drag overall UNDER LOAD. A good example is free spinning a square taper BB crank against a BB30 crank. In a free spin contest, the square taper crank may trounce a BB30 crank but under load the exact opposite result occurs. This is a common mistake and false perception. So four bearings can offer MUCH less bearing drag than two bearings. Depends on the loading. It comes down to ball stress based upon force per unit area and even axle deflection as it relates to ball bearing force.
I weigh 180 lbs. In a standard road bike position a common rider will apply 60% of his/her weight to the rear wheel in terms of normal force which in my case equals 108 lbs of vertical force to the rear hub and axle. If my thesis of an engaged hub which in effect offers 4 load bearings and not two is a valid premise...and this can be easily proven in the lab or on the road, then 4 bearings sustaining a 100 lb load plus torque due to say 500 watts out of the saddle tension on the chain pulling on one side of the hub maybe better supported by 4 bearings versus 2 bearings in terms of reducing bearing drag. Ball bearing rolling resistance is NOT the same thing as bearing drag. A spin test has nothing to do with how a hub with particular bearing quantity or orientation will perform under load.
In summary, unless you perform the testing I suggest and as I mentioned previously the test would have to be carefully constructed to mimic actual riding conditions, it is impossible to prove if your new hub is faster or actually slower and or if there is actually less bearing stress and wear over time as you propose.
I weigh 180 lbs. In a standard road bike position a common rider will apply 60% of his/her weight to the rear wheel in terms of normal force which in my case equals 108 lbs of vertical force to the rear hub and axle. If my thesis of an engaged hub which in effect offers 4 load bearings and not two is a valid premise...and this can be easily proven in the lab or on the road, then 4 bearings sustaining a 100 lb load plus torque due to say 500 watts out of the saddle tension on the chain pulling on one side of the hub maybe better supported by 4 bearings versus 2 bearings in terms of reducing bearing drag. Ball bearing rolling resistance is NOT the same thing as bearing drag. A spin test has nothing to do with how a hub with particular bearing quantity or orientation will perform under load.
In summary, unless you perform the testing I suggest and as I mentioned previously the test would have to be carefully constructed to mimic actual riding conditions, it is impossible to prove if your new hub is faster or actually slower and or if there is actually less bearing stress and wear over time as you propose.
I emailed Lennard Zinn and Jason at Friction Facts over a year ago about this, and here's what got mentioned.
Technical FAQ: How much drag can we eliminate by dropping two bearings? - VeloNews.com
The main point in the article:
Back to your reader’s original question — for the loads and RPM seen in a bicycle application, a decrease in the number of bearings supporting the same load would decrease the overall drag seen in the hub.
We are interested in the bearings under load, which is why we are talking about spacing and spinning the load bearings. The freehub body bearings support the load of the freehub body, not the load of the wheel. You can remove the freehub body and it doesn't affect the load to the wheel at all. If you were to measure wheel stiffness with our without a freehub body it would be the same.
03-23-15, 08:42 AM
#78
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
I have emailed Jason at Friction Facts about testing the hubs, but his hub testing machine is not online and he's not planning on getting it up and running.
I emailed Lennard Zinn and Jason at Friction Facts over a year ago about this, and here's what got mentioned.
Technical FAQ: How much drag can we eliminate by dropping two bearings? - VeloNews.com
The main point in the article:
Back to your reader’s original question — for the loads and RPM seen in a bicycle application, a decrease in the number of bearings supporting the same load would decrease the overall drag seen in the hub.
We are interested in the bearings under load, which is why we are talking about spacing and spinning the load bearings. The freehub body bearings support the load of the freehub body, not the load of the wheel. You can remove the freehub body and it doesn't affect the load to the wheel at all. If you were to measure wheel stiffness with our without a freehub body it would be the same.
I emailed Lennard Zinn and Jason at Friction Facts over a year ago about this, and here's what got mentioned.
Technical FAQ: How much drag can we eliminate by dropping two bearings? - VeloNews.com
The main point in the article:
Back to your reader’s original question — for the loads and RPM seen in a bicycle application, a decrease in the number of bearings supporting the same load would decrease the overall drag seen in the hub.
We are interested in the bearings under load, which is why we are talking about spacing and spinning the load bearings. The freehub body bearings support the load of the freehub body, not the load of the wheel. You can remove the freehub body and it doesn't affect the load to the wheel at all. If you were to measure wheel stiffness with our without a freehub body it would be the same.
03-23-15, 08:55 AM
#79
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,435
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3136 Post(s)
Liked 1,704 Times
in
1,029 Posts
Sorry but I am much too smart to be often wrong...lol. I will take your back handed compliment. 
What I write may or may not be true. Or another way of looking at it, if Boyd is marketing his new hubs based upon reduced drag or bearing wear, he should be cautious. Rigorous testing is in order to prove or disprove what he is suggesting. It really comes down to the force/deflection of the axle and individual ball bearing forces in aggregate when the bike is being propelled by the crank.
His suggestion that two freehub bearings that go along for the ride may or may not be helpful to say sustained 250-500 watts to the pedals when more bearing support and rotational freedom of 4 active bearings maybe beneficial for the reason I explained. It would have to be tested. My guess is the difference is modest either in improvement or detriment but it maybe more than that.
What I write may or may not be true. Or another way of looking at it, if Boyd is marketing his new hubs based upon reduced drag or bearing wear, he should be cautious. Rigorous testing is in order to prove or disprove what he is suggesting. It really comes down to the force/deflection of the axle and individual ball bearing forces in aggregate when the bike is being propelled by the crank.His suggestion that two freehub bearings that go along for the ride may or may not be helpful to say sustained 250-500 watts to the pedals when more bearing support and rotational freedom of 4 active bearings maybe beneficial for the reason I explained. It would have to be tested. My guess is the difference is modest either in improvement or detriment but it maybe more than that.
03-23-15, 09:07 AM
#80
Fatty McFatcakes
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Krispy Kreme
Posts: 986
Bikes: Aero Cheeseburger w/ Sr(h)am eBacon
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 245 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Here in lies the simplicity of your thinking ...
... I don't want to go into the weeds with you because it won't be pretty ...
... You don't have data. But what you write is wrong and your comments support your misguided analogy ...
... it is impossible to prove if your new hub is faster or actually slower and or if there is actually less bearing stress and wear over time as you propose ...
... I believe your thread should be a celebration of your new Eternity hubs ...
... I don't want to go into the weeds with you because it won't be pretty ...
... You don't have data. But what you write is wrong and your comments support your misguided analogy ...
... it is impossible to prove if your new hub is faster or actually slower and or if there is actually less bearing stress and wear over time as you propose ...
... I believe your thread should be a celebration of your new Eternity hubs ...
Campag, you are nothing, if not "in the weeds".
But I love your tenacity and commitment to proving you are right – if only by sheer word count. It's very amusing to the rest of us mere mortals.
03-23-15, 09:32 AM
#82
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
You should probably buy a set of the hubs and test them.
I think they are cool looking. How loud are they...say a scale between Shimano hubs and Chris King? I must confess, this is one of my sticking points to buying hubs.
I think they are cool looking. How loud are they...say a scale between Shimano hubs and Chris King? I must confess, this is one of my sticking points to buying hubs.
03-23-15, 09:43 AM
#83
Boyd Cycling owner
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
Adjustable on the loudness scale. We are shipping the hubs with a tube of the SpeedCoat pawl grease that we had developed for the hubs. Put a tiny bit of grease and they'll be louder, use more and they'll be quieter.
03-23-15, 10:00 AM
#84
Senior Member
Cool design. Looks to be well thought out. I would like to hear some real world riders opinions. But very cool.
03-23-15, 10:06 AM
#85
Fatty McFatcakes
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Krispy Kreme
Posts: 986
Bikes: Aero Cheeseburger w/ Sr(h)am eBacon
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 245 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
But that's ok, it's not your fault.
In fact, the less you know about me, the better. So yeah, we'll just go with flowers. Only ever assume that my specialty is picking flowers
03-23-15, 12:03 PM
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,435
Bikes: Colnago, Cervelo, Scott
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
It's funny to me that you guys think that proving it is better actually matters for people to buy it. Hell, look at Stages power meters. People know they suck and they still sell like hotcakes!
03-23-15, 12:13 PM
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
It matters for ME to buy it or not.
03-23-15, 12:39 PM
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,602
Bikes: Ridley Noah fast, Colnago CLX,Giant Propel Advanced, Pinnerello Gogma 65.1, Specialized S-works Venge, CAADX,Cervelo S3
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-23-15, 01:58 PM
#89
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
How about questioning the technical merit of a new product when the entire industry is different?
What sucks is your opinion and analogy to Stages. Apples and garden rakes. Stages are a cost effective alternative to other power meter systems. Boyd's hubs aren't. They are a costly alternative. So the expectation is if you pay more money then the product will offer a benefit. Unproven other than the word of a company that hasn't tested its thesis. If you carefully read comments posted from Jason at Friction Facts, almost everything he stated can be challenged. More functional bearings share the load and lower ball bearing friction per ball results. Taking this a step further, why don't rear hubs have 8 cartridge bearings? Added weight, complexity and cost and diminishing return of lower bearing drag is the reason. Adding more bearings would be imperceptible to the rider and bearings already can last for 30-40K miles with conventional hubs. More bearings under load is better for bearing life and not worse. Bottom line is the drive side single load bearing of the Boyd design is under high stress when pedal forces are sustained. His freehub bearings are passive. On a conventional hub design, the two bearings inside the freehub sustain most of the chain tension stress and the two bearings inside a conventional wheel hub do a perfectly fine job of stabilizing the wheel. An engaged wheel hub and freehub work together for lateral stiffness which gives the net effect of wider bearing spacing under load.
Last edited by Campag4life; 03-23-15 at 02:41 PM.
03-23-15, 02:57 PM
#90
Boyd Cycling owner
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
How about proving that it isn't worse when two bearings share the load versus four when the freehub is engaged to the wheel hub?
How about questioning the technical merit of a new product when the entire industry is different?
What sucks is your opinion and analogy to Stages. Apples and garden rakes. Stages are a cost effective alternative to other power meter systems. Boyd's hubs aren't. They are a costly alternative. So the expectation is if you pay more money then the product will offer a benefit. Unproven other than the word of a company that hasn't tested its thesis. If you carefully read comments posted from Jason at Friction Facts, almost everything he stated can be challenged. More functional bearings share the load and lower ball bearing friction per ball results. Taking this a step further, why don't rear hubs have 8 cartridge bearings? Added weight, complexity and cost and diminishing return of lower bearing drag is the reason. Adding more bearings would be imperceptible to the rider and bearings already can last for 30-40K miles with conventional hubs. More bearings under load is better for bearing life and not worse. Bottom line is the drive side single load bearing of the Boyd design is under high stress when pedal forces are sustained. His freehub bearings are passive. On a conventional hub design, the two bearings inside the freehub sustain most of the chain tension stress and the two bearings inside a conventional wheel hub do a perfectly fine job of stabilizing the wheel. An engaged wheel hub and freehub work together for lateral stiffness which gives the net effect of wider bearing spacing under load.
How about questioning the technical merit of a new product when the entire industry is different?
What sucks is your opinion and analogy to Stages. Apples and garden rakes. Stages are a cost effective alternative to other power meter systems. Boyd's hubs aren't. They are a costly alternative. So the expectation is if you pay more money then the product will offer a benefit. Unproven other than the word of a company that hasn't tested its thesis. If you carefully read comments posted from Jason at Friction Facts, almost everything he stated can be challenged. More functional bearings share the load and lower ball bearing friction per ball results. Taking this a step further, why don't rear hubs have 8 cartridge bearings? Added weight, complexity and cost and diminishing return of lower bearing drag is the reason. Adding more bearings would be imperceptible to the rider and bearings already can last for 30-40K miles with conventional hubs. More bearings under load is better for bearing life and not worse. Bottom line is the drive side single load bearing of the Boyd design is under high stress when pedal forces are sustained. His freehub bearings are passive. On a conventional hub design, the two bearings inside the freehub sustain most of the chain tension stress and the two bearings inside a conventional wheel hub do a perfectly fine job of stabilizing the wheel. An engaged wheel hub and freehub work together for lateral stiffness which gives the net effect of wider bearing spacing under load.
Track hubs last much longer than road hubs, even though the type of riding that track wheels are going through are a LOT harsher than road wheels. A track hub has two bearings, spaced out near the drop outs (which are only 120mm apart). And both of those bearings are load bearings. . .I'm sure even we can agree on that.
If you think about it, the Eternity rear hub is designed almost like a track rear hub, with the exception being there is a freehub body mounted on the hub shell.
The freehub body on a standard hub does not add to the wheel stiffness.
03-23-15, 04:46 PM
#91
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
A couple things.
Track hubs last much longer than road hubs, even though the type of riding that track wheels are going through are a LOT harsher than road wheels. A track hub has two bearings, spaced out near the drop outs (which are only 120mm apart). And both of those bearings are load bearings. . .I'm sure even we can agree on that.
Track hubs last much longer than road hubs, even though the type of riding that track wheels are going through are a LOT harsher than road wheels. A track hub has two bearings, spaced out near the drop outs (which are only 120mm apart). And both of those bearings are load bearings. . .I'm sure even we can agree on that.
Or rather, we don't agree on why track hubs...I presume you mean track hub bearings...why they last longer in a track environment versus on the road. This isn't complex. What kills bearings is mostly high frequency point loading due to irregular road surfaces and ingress of contamination. Both are what kill bearings on the road and both dynamics are absent in a track environment.And sadly this is wrong as well and perhaps the central point of the argument which you just don't seem to accept or understand. Btw, you have a lot of company. It isn't an easy concept to grasp upon casual observance, but careful thought I believe will help you. The crank with say 400 watts of power puts a substantial moment i.e. F X D on the wheel hub in the front view. Please re-read that to visualize what is going on when the crank is under load. This lateral twisting of the wheel is why dropout stiffness is so prized in what is considered a responsive race bike...and this puts a lot of force into the cassette and both the freehub and wheel hub. Under load the freehub effectively locks to the wheel hub. Again, read all of this slowly and digest it as I have stated it before. The tremendous tugging on the chain which the stronger drive side spokes of the rear wheel fight against...this force goes into the freehub and wheel hub that are locked together. They act as effectively one long hub with 4 bearings supporting both hubs as they fight against the axle due to the chain tugging on one side of the axle. So that is the dynamic which has repeatedly escaped you in spite of my effort to explain it. So 2 load bearings will never give the support of 4 load bearings as the freehub and wheel hub lock together under load.
Last edited by Campag4life; 03-23-15 at 04:49 PM.
03-23-15, 05:03 PM
#92
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
03-23-15, 05:32 PM
#96
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
Time will tell and good luck. Thanks for being a good sport and will clear the deck for you to talk to others...
03-23-15, 07:18 PM
#98
ka maté ka maté ka ora
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: wessex
Posts: 4,423
Bikes: breezer venturi - red novo bosberg - red, pedal force cg1 - red, neuvation f-100 - da, devinci phantom - xt, miele piste - miche/campy, bianchi reparto corse sbx, concorde squadra tsx - da, miele team issue sl - ultegra
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
I was looking at some watches and on my radar screen is an Ochs und Junior Moonphase. In five parts, the watch will lose one day in 3478 years. most moon phase watches will lose the day in 2, or 122 years requiring 30 or more parts to accomplish. I think there is something in a ravishingly simple solution that I find pleasing. I think Boyd accomplishes this with economy of form and function. Like no one else in my opinion. Campag, you are the one with the thesis, it's on you to prove or disprove.
03-23-15, 07:33 PM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
That is totally absurd. The claimant has responsibility for the proof. You can't introduce a new product and expect the marketplace to accept it is the greatest thing since sliced bread because they haven't disproved that. It just doesn't work that way. You claim a property, it isn't established until you demonstrate it. At least that is the way it always worked in the plastics business. Customers, if they are smart, let you get away with nothing.
11-22-15, 08:19 PM
#100
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The banks of the River Charles
Posts: 2,029
Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease, 2020 Seven Evergreen, 2019 Honey Allroads Ti, 2018 Seven Redsky XX, 2017 Trek Boon 7, 2014 Trek 520
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 696 Post(s)
Liked 910 Times
in
487 Posts
It looks like the new hubs are finally ready to ship. I'm contemplating the 44mm carbon clinchers, the free hub upgrade is something I'm contemplating.
Boyd Cycling
Boyd Cycling