I asserted:
>>Using threads that are tightened by the pedaling action is a fundamentally inferior approach, due
>>to the excessive levels of force sometimes required to remove freewheels from old-fashioned hubs.
Chalo Cholina demurred:
> It's a fair complaint, but I'll point out that as a 360-lb rider with freewheels up to 38t, I have
> yet to come across a hub and FW that couldn't be separated. In the worst case the freewheel body
> must be destroyed. This is a low-cost subcomponent of a quality wheel.
>
> Furthermore, I have never had to resort to such violence for any freewheel using a Shimano spline
> for removal. Only 2-prong Suntour type bodies have had to perish in the name of progress.
I've ripped Shimano splined freewheel pullers to shreds on recalcitrang freewheels, then had to
disassemble and destroy the freewheel in order to salvage the wheel.
>>No doubt, but I maintain that cassette Freehubs are superior to thread-on freewheel hubs in every
>>respect.
>
>
> They're not, really. There is no Shimano freehub that compares in any detail to the aforementioned
> Phil freewheel hubs, for instance. (Though to be fair, Phil cassette hubs hold up nicely to the
> comparison.)
You're comparing apples and locomotives. The question is whether the cassete design or the thread-on
design is superior, so you should be comparing Phil freewheel hubs with Phil cassette hubs.
A 1983 Rolls Royce is a nicer car than a 2003 Honda Civic. Should we conclude from this that
cars were better 20 years ago? Should we conclude from this that English cars are better than
Japanese cars?
> Suppose you want an dishless multispeed wheel, or a very stout axle, or an unusual drilling? What
> if you want to put top-shelf 32h road hubs on a BMX bike, or 48h high-flange BMX hubs on your
> road bike?
This has nothing to do with the question of which cluster system is superior, but is an issue of
availability of different model variations.
> I have a set of hubs I made with 3/4" axles front and rear-- this is only possible with a
> freewheel.
Also only _needed_ with a freewheel! ;-)
> I have a completely dishless 130mm wheel; no cassette system would permit such a thing, nor any
> optimized use of a five- or six-speed block.
For those who think a dishless wheel is important there are ways to do this, using wider dropout
spacing, but most folks don't think it's worth the trouble. There's no inherent reason why using
thread-on freewheels would make creating a dishless wheel easier, this is an issue of how many
sprockets are in the cluster and what their spacing it, has nothing to do with how the cluster
attaches to the hub.
5- and 6-speed blocks are long obsolete, and there's no technically valid reason for using them on a
new installation.
> One has scores of choices in 48h rear hubs if the 1.37x24 standard is observed. In cassette hubs
> the choice is pitiful and gets worse for anything other than tandem spacings. Likewise cheap
> sealed-bearing hubs abound for freewheels, but if you want an all-cartridge-bearing cassette hub,
> prepare to offer up a pound of flesh.
>
> I think your assertion of the categorical superiority of cassette hubs holds sway only for typical
> wheels on mainstream bikes for average riders.
No, I'd say it "holds sway" for any configuration in which suitable hubs are available in
both formats.
This is the case for 99.999% of derailer-bike applications.
It is true that there are a few oddball hub configurations for which the demand is so tiny
that no manufacturer has thought it worthwhile to invest in the necessary tooling to make a
cassette version.
Sheldon "Splines Are Better Than Threads" Brown +--------------------------------------------+
| When choosing between two evils, | I always like to try the one I've never | tried before. --
| Mae West |
+--------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
