aluminium frame, 135mm hub, 130mm frame spacing

Hi,

This is my first post to this group so first a quick hello to everyone.

I am finishing rebuilding an old Verlicchi aluminium frame. I do not know much about the history of
the frame but 'old' certainly goes a long way to describe it.

I have a new LX rear hub that is (the standard?) 135mm width. The spacing on my frame, inside
dropout width, is 130mm. My question, is it okay to use this hub with the rear stays splayed?

If not, what options do I have? Two I can think of,

o I have heard that it is possible to repack the rear hub in cases like this, I'm not afraid to get
my hands dirty but what exact change is made when repacking to reduce the effective size of the hub?

o When I received the frame there were two aluminum plates, drilled with a few holes, secured by an
aluminum bolt sandwiching the rear chainstays just behind the bottom bracket shell, which I have now
removed. Could they have been there to compensate for the splayed stays? They could also have been
there for a plate to attach a floor stand to, or for some other sinister reason such as, well, I
don't want to think about it.

Ian.

__________________________________________________________
Ian Bates

 

Ian Bates wrote:
> I am finishing rebuilding an old Verlicchi aluminium frame. I do not know much about the history
> of the frame but 'old' certainly goes a long way to describe it.
>
> I have a new LX rear hub that is (the standard?) 135mm width.

That's the standard for modern mountain bikes.

> The spacing on my frame, inside dropout width, is 130mm. My question, is it okay to use this hub
> with the rear stays splayed?

Hi. Some people have got away with spreading al frames but I would be wary (some people have
survived going down steep hills without any brakes but I wouldn't fancy trying it myself!). See:
www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

> If not, what options do I have? Two I can think of,
/snip I'm not sure about your options but how about this third one?: Use a standard modern road bike
hub. They're 130mm.

~PB

 

Ian Bates <[email protected]> wrote:

: I have a new LX rear hub that is (the standard?) 135mm width. The spacing on my frame, inside
: dropout width, is 130mm. My question, is it okay to use this hub with the rear stays splayed?

I'm with Pete on this one - I'd just buy a cheap new road hub and use that.

As for the bits of metal, they were probably a mounting for a mudguard.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester

 

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Pete Biggs wrote:

> > The spacing on my frame, inside dropout width, is 130mm. My question, is it okay to use this hub
> > with the rear stays splayed?
>
> Hi. Some people have got away with spreading al frames but I would be wary (some people have
> survived going down steep hills without any brakes but I wouldn't fancy trying it myself!). See:
> www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

This is the page, and related links, that started to get me worried.

> > If not, what options do I have? Two I can think of,
> /snip I'm not sure about your options but how about this third one?: Use a standard modern road
> bike hub. They're 130mm.

Thanks, I did not know that. I'll look into getting hold of a road hub (I may even try building it
myself, I have a spare rim or two knocking round), to be on the safe side.

Ian.

__________________________________________________________
Ian Bates

 

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Arthur Clune wrote:

> : I have a new LX rear hub that is (the standard?) 135mm width. The spacing on my frame, inside
> : dropout width, is 130mm. My question, is it okay to use this hub with the rear stays splayed?
>
> I'm with Pete on this one - I'd just buy a cheap new road hub and use that.

Will go with this one. Thanks.

> As for the bits of metal, they were probably a mounting for a mudguard.

I'll ignore them for the time being then.

Thanks again,

Ian.

__________________________________________________________
Ian Bates

 

Ian Bates <[email protected]> wrote
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Arthur Clune wrote:
> > As for the bits of metal, they were probably a mounting for a mudguard.
>
> I'll ignore them for the time being then.
>

Could also be an "anti chain-suck" plate

Andrew