Shimano's new freehub inboard bearing design -- a backwards step?

Thomas Hood said:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

Thoughts?

Yup, a Campy copy. Probably done to get "lighter weight" as the DA 10
rear hub weighs less than the old, and proper, DA 9 model 7700 rear
hub.

Note that this *inboard* trend only appears in the DA 10 model 7800
rear hub. If you want the proper Shimano rear hub, get Ultegra 10 and
lower!

Thomas Hood said:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

Thoughts?

Thomas Hood

Backwards step? is the title of your thread. Prejudging the design?
How many tens of thousands of miles do you have on inborad bearing
hubs, like the Campagnolo rear hub?

Quoted message said:

Thomas Hood said:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

Thoughts?

Thomas Hood

Backwards step? is the title of your thread. Prejudging the design?
How many tens of thousands of miles do you have on inborad bearing
hubs, like the Campagnolo rear hub?

Well, the Shimano design with the outboard bearing race is arguably
superior. However, your observation about the (gotta be millions of)
miles on Campy and other hubs with an inboard right bearing race
indicates that they are certainly strong enough.

I bet, though, that the reason is to allow a smaller-diameter freehub,
to allow a smaller sprocket.

--

David L. Johnson

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thomas Hood said:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

Thoughts?

Thomas Hood

i think this post has Ct [troll coefficient] of 0.9

David L. Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

Thomas Hood said:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

[...]

Quoted message said:

I bet, though, that the reason is to allow a smaller-diameter freehub,
to allow a smaller sprocket.

That's possible, but only if the right side locknut is smaller in
diameter than usual. Otherwise, you'd need just as big an opening in
the freehub body as with the usual Shimano design.

All questions of strength aside, it looks like the freehub body would
have to come off in order to service the bearings. That does seem like
a step backwards.

On May 31, 5:24 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I bet, though, that the reason is to allow a smaller-diameter freehub,
to allow a smaller sprocket.

Nope, this design:
http://tinyurl.com/28fftt
with this cassette:
http://tinyurl.com/2fp6lt
allows a smaller sprocket than the Dura-Ace.

Jeff

jim beam said:

Thomas Hood said:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Quoted message said:

Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

Quoted message said:

Thoughts?

Quoted message said:

Thomas Hood

i think this post has Ct [troll coefficient] of 0.9

....in the same breath: http://tinyurl.com/ypr2kn

Extraordinary.

Tom

David L. Johnson said:

I bet, though, that the reason is to allow a smaller-diameter
freehub, to allow a smaller sprocket.

I'd assume that switching to an aluminium freehub body required
deeper splines to bear the load from the sprockets, thus smaller
inner-diameter.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

Thomas Hood said:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

Thoughts?

Thomas Hood

I think one of the big reasons shimano went with the inboard bearing
design was so they could use a larger diameter aluminum axle and
aluminum feehub body. With there old design they had to have a ten
millimeter hex bolt that bolted the freehub body onto the hub body
which limited the diameter of the axle meaning they had to use ti.
(for dura-ace) in the older models to get the strength they needed.
Also since they are using an aluminum freehub body it would be
difficult to design a system that housed the racheting mech. in the
freehub body's like there older designs. Ultimately the system they
went with in the 7800 is lighter than the old 7700.

email hidden said:

Thomas Hood said:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Quoted message said:

Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

Quoted message said:

Thoughts?

Quoted message said:

Thomas Hood

Backwards step? is the title of your thread. Prejudging the design?
How many tens of thousands of miles do you have on inborad bearing
hubs, like the Campagnolo rear hub?

I think the point is a 'good' design feature of shimano hubs is
having the freehub body bolted onto the hub body with bearing support
outboard, definately a great design. Doubt anybody will bend the new
aluminum axle, just like none are bent with other non supported
freehub bodied hubs. But it's all about weight..I think 3 pawls should
be a minimum, and the 7800 have that.

David L. Johnson writes:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thoughts?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Backwards step? is the title of your thread. Prejudging the
design? How many tens of thousands of miles do you have on inboard
bearing hubs, like the Campagnolo rear hub?

Quoted message said:

Well, the Shimano design with the outboard bearing race is arguably
superior. However, your observation about the (gotta be millions
of) miles on Campy and other hubs with an inboard right bearing race
indicates that they are certainly strong enough.

That is not so. Talk to frame builders and ask how many broken right
rear dropouts they replace. THese are caused by axle flexing and
failures. Look at the face of any right rear dropout that uses an
overhung axle (Campagnolo) and note the deep erosion in the contact
face. These wheels must be manually knocked out of engagement after
the QR is opened because they are so deeply eroded.

Quoted message said:

I bet, though, that the reason is to allow a smaller-diameter
freehub, to allow a smaller sprocket.

Gotta have that 53t-11t ratio even though it can only be used on
descents where coasting is faster or with a great tailwind where a
smaller gear would do better. That's a 130" gear by the way. If you
can pedal that at 100RPM that would be 60.5kmh, truly a new hour
record.

Jobst Brandt

Jeff Wills said:

Quoted message said:

I bet, though, that the reason is to allow a smaller-diameter
freehub, to allow a smaller sprocket.

Quoted message said:

Nope, this design:
http://tinyurl.com/28fftt
with this cassette:
http://tinyurl.com/2fp6lt
allows a smaller sprocket than the Dura-Ace.

I find interesting that the special tool TL-HG09 is offered rather
than using a sprocket and chain whip to unscrew the body.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson writes:

http://tinyurl.com/3792pk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.
> Thoughts?
Backwards step? is the title of your thread. Prejudging the
design? How many tens of thousands of miles do you have on inboard
bearing hubs, like the Campagnolo rear hub?

Well, the Shimano design with the outboard bearing race is arguably
superior. However, your observation about the (gotta be millions
of) miles on Campy and other hubs with an inboard right bearing race
indicates that they are certainly strong enough.

That is not so. Talk to frame builders and ask how many broken right
rear dropouts they replace. THese are caused by axle flexing and
failures. Look at the face of any right rear dropout that uses an
overhung axle (Campagnolo) and note the deep erosion in the contact
face. These wheels must be manually knocked out of engagement after
the QR is opened because they are so deeply eroded.

Quoted message said:

I bet, though, that the reason is to allow a smaller-diameter
freehub, to allow a smaller sprocket.

Gotta have that 53t-11t ratio even though it can only be used on
descents where coasting is faster or with a great tailwind where a
smaller gear would do better.

You have just dashed the hopes and dreams of a legion of wannabes
hoping to get a sponsored ride on Team Mitty!

Quoted message said:

That's a 130" gear by the way. If you
can pedal that at 100RPM that would be 60.5kmh, truly a new hour
record.

Jobst Brandt

Steve Gravrock said:

All questions of strength aside, it looks like the freehub body would
have to come off in order to service the bearings. That does seem like
a step backwards.

That's how you deal with Campy hubs, and it works fairly easily. The
only trick is to keep the pawls held down as you put the freehub back
on, and there is a plastic tool that works well for that.

--

David L. Johnson

Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and Excellence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thomas Hood <[email hidden]> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/3792pk
> Note the right-hand cone appears to be inboard, like Campag hubs.

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

I bet, though, that the reason is to allow a smaller-diameter freehub,
to allow a smaller sprocket.

Steve Gravrock said:

That's possible, but only if the right side locknut is smaller in
diameter than usual. Otherwise, you'd need just as big an opening in
the freehub body as with the usual Shimano design.

All questions of strength aside, it looks like the freehub body would
have to come off in order to service the bearings. That does seem like
a step backwards.

Backwards? I have no opinion on this but the Campagnolo design allows a
much larger and stronger ratcheting mechanism than other smallish
cassette body designs. Disassembly and service of their system is, if
anything, faster and easier than most hubs, certainly not an 'issue'.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

David L. Johnson said:

Steve Gravrock said:

All questions of strength aside, it looks like the freehub body would
have to come off in order to service the bearings. That does seem like
a step backwards.

That's how you deal with Campy hubs, and it works fairly easily. The
only trick is to keep the pawls held down as you put the freehub back
on, and there is a plastic tool that works well for that.

Tool? Put the wheel horizontal (resting on the sink ie.), slide the axle
with the freehub body in till the pawls are resting against the hub
flange, strangle the pawls with a piece of package rope, the body pops
in, lift the body a few mm and remove the rope and lower the axle and
freehub body all the way in. Easy and no special tools required.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

On 01 Jun 2007 16:34:43 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Gotta have that 53t-11t ratio even though it can only be used on
descents where coasting is faster or with a great tailwind where a
smaller gear would do better. That's a 130" gear by the way. If you
can pedal that at 100RPM that would be 60.5kmh, truly a new hour
record.

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

I happily pedal my 53 x 11 up and down the Arkansas River at about 20
mph every day at about 53 rpm.

In a thread with many comments about how most (though not all) riders
lower their cadence on hills, Robert Chung mentioned that studies
indicate maximum efficiency is around 50~60 rpm and drops as cadence
increases:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/f206ae932369120f

There are advantages to spinning, but it's actually riders with Walter
Mitty fantasies who insist on 90 to 100 rpm--ordinary riders who
haven't been told that they must spin will naturally cruise around at
lower cadences.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

There are advantages to spinning, but it's actually riders with Walter
Mitty fantasies who insist on 90 to 100 rpm--ordinary riders who
haven't been told that they must spin will naturally cruise around at
lower cadences.

That's a really annoying attitude -- if you spin, you must be a Walter
Mitty. I spin because I tried it and I like it.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Lou Holtman said:

Tool? Put the wheel horizontal (resting on the sink ie.), slide the axle
with the freehub body in till the pawls are resting against the hub
flange, strangle the pawls with a piece of package rope, the body pops
in, lift the body a few mm and remove the rope and lower the axle and
freehub body all the way in. Easy and no special tools required.

Yeah, I used to do it something like that. But the tool makes it
easier, with no incidents of a pawl getting loose. I'm sure that never
happened to you with this method, but it did to me.

--

David L. Johnson

It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can only be
cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and Colnagos are a lot
cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris.
-- Glenn Davies