cyclops/saris hub damage with 10sp Shimano cassettes



On May 11, 11:35 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galleries/20070509-saris-hub/DSCF3807.html
> >>> happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano know
> >>> this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel, ti, or deep
> >>> spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you ask me.
>
> >>> stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a proper
> >>> [steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.
>
> >> Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't. Truth
> >> is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have their cassette
> >> cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in as shown in the photos
> >> (and, by the way, my own cassette body looks a lot worse than what's
> >> shown in the photos).
>
> > sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want the
> > thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's non-engineering
> > oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.
>
> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
> splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of greater
> failure than something "better."
>
> Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
> extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as impeding
> the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
> annoyance.
>
> I would much rather see people spend less time worrying about cassette
> splines and crank arm attchments and more time on coming up with a chain
> that doesn't require lubrication (and yet is efficient, quiet &
> lightweight). Oh, and while we're at it, how about tires that are supple,
> low rolling resistance, long life and have greater puncture resistance.
> Improvements in those areas would make for, in my opinion, huge leaps in
> participation and enjoyment of cycling.


Huh? Chain lubrication is a big deal in the Bay area? Causing people
to not ride their bikes and not enjoy it? And people in the Bay area
won't ride their bikes or hate it when they do if they have to choose
between light racy tires that will flat, or heavy durable tires that
won't? Do people in the Bay area quit bicycling because they have
flat tires?



>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> "jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galleries/20070509-saris-hub/DSCF3807.html
> >>> happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano know
> >>> this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel, ti, or deep
> >>> spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you ask me.
>
> >>> stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a proper
> >>> [steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.
>
> >> Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't. Truth
> >> is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have their cassette
> >> cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in as shown in the photos
> >> (and, by the way, my own cassette body looks a lot worse than what's
> >> shown in the photos).
>
> > sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want the
> > thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's non-engineering
> > oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.
>
> >> The only real downside, apart from creating a whole lot of fear,
> >> uncertainty & doubt, is that it makes it more difficult to remove the
> >> cogs from the cassette mechanism, since they've rotated beyond their
> >> grooves a bit. Easiest way to deal with it is to use a chain whip and
> >> simply rotate them back in the other direction a bit. I don't want to
> >> admit how long it was before I thought about doing something so simple &
> >> obvious...
>
> >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
>> I would much rather see people spend less time worrying about cassette
>> splines and crank arm attchments and more time on coming up with a chain
>> that doesn't require lubrication (and yet is efficient, quiet &
>> lightweight). Oh, and while we're at it, how about tires that are supple,
>> low rolling resistance, long life and have greater puncture resistance.
>> Improvements in those areas would make for, in my opinion, huge leaps in
>> participation and enjoyment of cycling.
>
>
> Huh? Chain lubrication is a big deal in the Bay area? Causing people
> to not ride their bikes and not enjoy it? And people in the Bay area
> won't ride their bikes or hate it when they do if they have to choose
> between light racy tires that will flat, or heavy durable tires that
> won't? Do people in the Bay area quit bicycling because they have
> flat tires?

Hard to believe, but there are still a few (very few) shops around that just
don't get it, and think that reduction in flats would be a bad thing because
it would cut down on their repair profits. Terribly short sighted; if people
didn't have to worry about flat tires, there'd be a lot more people riding.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
 
On 11 May 2007 08:13:33 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I doubt any of these cassettes would fix the
>problem since the pictures show the damage to the freehub body
>occurring where the small cogs sit. And no one puts the smallest cogs
>onto carriers to spread the load.

Not SRAM?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Mike Jacoubowsky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hard to believe, but there are still a few (very few) shops around that just
> don't get it, and think that reduction in flats would be a bad thing because
> it would cut down on their repair profits. Terribly short sighted; if people
> didn't have to worry about flat tires, there'd be a lot more people riding.

I've seduced about half the commuters at my work to the dark side already.

Schwalbe Marathon Plus

One flat so far: A rear flat to my tire from a 2" nail.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"sic transit discus mundi"
(From the System Administrator's Guide, by Lars Wirzenius)
 
On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:24:47 -0700, Dane Buson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Jacoubowsky <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hard to believe, but there are still a few (very few) shops around that just
>> don't get it, and think that reduction in flats would be a bad thing because
>> it would cut down on their repair profits. Terribly short sighted; if people
>> didn't have to worry about flat tires, there'd be a lot more people riding.
>
>I've seduced about half the commuters at my work to the dark side already.
>
>Schwalbe Marathon Plus
>
>One flat so far: A rear flat to my tire from a 2" nail.

Dear Dane,

Bah! Only steel is real!

(For tires, not frames.)

Let's see a new-fangled tire match these armor-plated beauties:

"The oft-prophesied puncture-proof tire is still the subject of much
experiment in the endeavor to discover a fabric which cannot be
penetrated by an ordinary sharp instrument without the loss of
resiliency in its manufacture. The Chicago Puncture-Proof Tire Company
exhibited at the Western show tires fitted with armor consisting
of pieces of steel 21/4 inches wide by .005 of an inch thick, made
under great pressure and very elastic. . . ."

"The Dean tire [see diagram] is one of the novelties of 1897, having a
series of scales laid in the fabric, overlapping each other, and
riveted together in such a manner as to allow them to move slightly
when the wheel is in motion. These scales are six thousandths of an
inch thick, about three fourths of an inch wide, and while adding
about seven ounces to the weight of the tire, maintain a resilient
tread, nearly if not quite puncture-proof."

Even super-Slime was available in the form of Vimoid in 1897:

" . . . the Vim tire is typical, and Vimoid, a special preparation
of the Boston Woven Hose and Rubber Company, being forced into a
puncture, cut or gash, quickly hardens, assuming the character
of rubber, and effecting a permanent repair."

Slightly off-topic, but no dust-proof water-tight modern cyclocomputer
comes in thirty handsome models or can match the performance of the
lightweight 1897 model:

"The 'Veeder' cyclometer enjoys the distinction of being the lightest
manufactured. It is at the same time dust-proof, water-tight, and made
to register from one to ten thousand miles. It was shown in thirty
different styles of finish at the recent bicycle shows, with one
attached to an electric motor, run at the rate of a mile in from three
seconds to a second and a half."

Let's see a modern digital cyclocomputer register mileage accurately
at 1,200 to 2,400 mph!

"Outing" magazine, 1897

http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_30/outXXX01/outXXX01w.pdf

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:24:47 -0700, Dane Buson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I've seduced about half the commuters at my work to the dark side already.
>
>Schwalbe Marathon Plus
>
>One flat so far: A rear flat to my tire from a 2" nail.

I'm scared of difficulty getting that tire on and off.

I must also say, with Mr. Tuffies I get almost no flats. Perhaps one
every year or so and it's usually from something big and knarly.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:24:47 -0700, Dane Buson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>I've seduced about half the commuters at my work to the dark side already.
>>
>>Schwalbe Marathon Plus
>>
>>One flat so far: A rear flat to my tire from a 2" nail.
>
> I'm scared of difficulty getting that tire on and off.

Getting it on the first time was rather difficult. Getting it off and
on the second time was not too bad. I haven't done enough mileage to
need to swap on new tires yet.

They are showing signs of wear, but I haven't needed to replace them
yet. I put the front on October of 2005. The rear has seen less miles
because I swapped another wheel on when I needed to swap in a new rim.
I put about 6000 miles a year on this bike.

> I must also say, with Mr. Tuffies I get almost no flats. Perhaps one
> every year or so and it's usually from something big and knarly.

I've never tried them.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
When I woke up this morning, my girlfriend asked if I had slept well.
I said, "No, I made a few mistakes."
-- Steven Wright
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galleries/20070509-saris-hub/DSCF3807.html
>>>> happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano know
>>>> this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel, ti, or deep
>>>> spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you ask me.
>>>>
>>>> stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a proper
>>>> [steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.
>>> Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't. Truth
>>> is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have their cassette
>>> cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in as shown in the photos
>>> (and, by the way, my own cassette body looks a lot worse than what's
>>> shown in the photos).
>> sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want the
>> thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's non-engineering
>> oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.
>
> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
> splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of greater
> failure than something "better."

"deficient"? do they yield?

>
> Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
> extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as impeding
> the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
> annoyance.

<snip>

minor annoyance??? that's gross yielding of the material - it's
completely negligent. but what i /really/ don't understand is why you
think that acceptable performance on a $1,500 hub!!!
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>> http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galleries/20070509-saris-hub/DSCF3807.html
> >>>> happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano know
> >>>> this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel, ti, or deep
> >>>> spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you ask me.
> >>>>
> >>>> stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a proper
> >>>> [steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.
> >>> Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't. Truth
> >>> is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have their cassette
> >>> cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in as shown in the photos
> >>> (and, by the way, my own cassette body looks a lot worse than what's
> >>> shown in the photos).
> >> sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want the
> >> thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's non-engineering
> >> oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.
> >
> > This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
> > splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
> > greater
> > failure than something "better."
>
> "deficient"? do they yield?

Octalink spindles don't yield, but I've seen enough cranks where the
spline interface is chewed up worse than an aluminum freehub shell to be
happy something better is out there. Jobst has proposed the cause of
this failure, and his thesis seems sensible to me.

Ironically, the spindles are probably just fine,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
 
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galleries/20070509-saris-hub/DSCF3807.html
>>>>>> happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano know
>>>>>> this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel, ti, or deep
>>>>>> spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you ask me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a proper
>>>>>> [steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.
>>>>> Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't. Truth
>>>>> is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have their cassette
>>>>> cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in as shown in the photos
>>>>> (and, by the way, my own cassette body looks a lot worse than what's
>>>>> shown in the photos).
>>>> sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want the
>>>> thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's non-engineering
>>>> oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.
>>> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
>>> splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
>>> greater
>>> failure than something "better."
>> "deficient"? do they yield?
>
> Octalink spindles don't yield, but I've seen enough cranks where the
> spline interface is chewed up worse than an aluminum freehub shell to be
> happy something better is out there. Jobst has proposed the cause of
> this failure, and his thesis seems sensible to me.

octalink may not be idiot-proof, but nor is square taper. i've never
had an octalink crank loosen, let alone get chewed, but i take the
trouble to torque correctly. i currently own 7 bikes with octalink
cranks. i weigh #205. i have many thousands of miles on them - the
oldest one about 18k. never a blink of trouble. until i experience it,
i say it's mechanic error. factory torque is a good deal higher than is
averagely possible with a 4" hex wrench.

>
> Ironically, the spindles are probably just fine,
>
why's that ironic?
 
jim beam wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galleries/20070509-saris-hub/DSCF3807.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano
>>>>>>> know this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel,
>>>>>>> ti, or deep spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you
>>>>>>> ask me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a
>>>>>>> proper [steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.
>>>>>> Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't.
>>>>>> Truth is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have
>>>>>> their cassette cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in
>>>>>> as shown in the photos (and, by the way, my own cassette body
>>>>>> looks a lot worse than what's shown in the photos).
>>>>> sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want
>>>>> the thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's
>>>>> non-engineering oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.
>>>> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink &
>>>> Isis splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no
>>>> evidence of greater failure than something "better."
>>> "deficient"? do they yield?
>>
>> Octalink spindles don't yield, but I've seen enough cranks where the
>> spline interface is chewed up worse than an aluminum freehub shell to
>> be happy something better is out there. Jobst has proposed the cause
>> of this failure, and his thesis seems sensible to me.
>
> octalink may not be idiot-proof, but nor is square taper. i've never
> had an octalink crank loosen, let alone get chewed, but i take the
> trouble to torque correctly. i currently own 7 bikes with octalink
> cranks. i weigh #205. i have many thousands of miles on them - the
> oldest one about 18k. never a blink of trouble. until i experience it,
> i say it's mechanic error. factory torque is a good deal higher than is
> averagely possible with a 4" hex wrench.

i should add, i've had a number of square taper cranks loosen.

>
>>
>> Ironically, the spindles are probably just fine,
>>
> why's that ironic?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Octalink spindles don't yield, but I've seen enough cranks where the
> >> spline interface is chewed up worse than an aluminum freehub shell to
> >> be happy something better is out there. Jobst has proposed the cause
> >> of this failure, and his thesis seems sensible to me.
> >
> > octalink may not be idiot-proof, but nor is square taper. i've never
> > had an octalink crank loosen, let alone get chewed, but i take the
> > trouble to torque correctly. i currently own 7 bikes with octalink
> > cranks. i weigh #205. i have many thousands of miles on them - the
> > oldest one about 18k. never a blink of trouble. until i experience it,
> > i say it's mechanic error. factory torque is a good deal higher than is
> > averagely possible with a 4" hex wrench.
>
> i should add, i've had a number of square taper cranks loosen.

> >> Ironically, the spindles are probably just fine,
> >>
> > why's that ironic?

Well, I suppose it isn't, strictly speaking, but the main reason the
Octalink design arrived was to solve the poor interface of the
square-taper, and also the weakness of the spindles under heavy loads
(meaining mostly heavy riders or rougher MTB races).

With Octalink, the spindle failures disappeared, but then cranks started
getting chewed up.

As to the nature of "mechanic's error," that's fair comment, but it's
rather like many human error issues: if the humans aren't working
according to the engineering spec, it's usually easier to change the
engineering than the humans.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galleries/20070509-saris-hub/DSCF3807.html
> >>> happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano know
> >>> this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel, ti, or deep
> >>> spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you ask me.
> >>>
> >>> stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a proper
> >>> [steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.
> >>
> >> Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't. Truth
> >> is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have their cassette
> >> cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in as shown in the photos
> >> (and, by the way, my own cassette body looks a lot worse than what's
> >> shown in the photos).
> >
> > sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want the
> > thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's non-engineering
> > oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.
>
> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
> splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of greater
> failure than something "better."
>
> Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
> extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as impeding
> the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
> annoyance.

A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
designed in failure. Unacceptable.

--
Michael Press
 
>> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
>> splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
>> greater
>> failure than something "better."
>>
>> Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
>> extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as
>> impeding
>> the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
>> annoyance.
>
> A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
> not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
> designed in failure. Unacceptable.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Which I would go along with except...

.... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
failure.

There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
required that something actually fail in use. Rather, an appearance that it
*might* fail is all that's required. The irony is that this thread has
caused me to re-think what's gone on with my own hub, which actually looks
worse than the one referenced by the original poster. But all this talk
about potential failure without anyone claiming actual failure has convinced
me I don't need to be concerned. However, I still forwarded my own photos to
the manufacturer (Bontrager, in this case) since, if there's an easy way to
avoid the cogs biting into the mechanism, it would make it a bit easier to
remove them. And be less scary-looking too.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
>>> splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
>>> greater
>>> failure than something "better."
>>>
>>> Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
>>> extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as
>>> impeding
>>> the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
>>> annoyance.
>> A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
>> not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
>> designed in failure. Unacceptable.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Press
>
> Which I would go along with except...
>
> ... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
> failure.

it /has/ failed. it has yielded. that shouldn't happen. particularly
not on a $1500 hub!

>
> There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
> required that something actually fail in use. Rather, an appearance that it
> *might* fail is all that's required. The irony is that this thread has
> caused me to re-think what's gone on with my own hub, which actually looks
> worse than the one referenced by the original poster. But all this talk
> about potential failure without anyone claiming actual failure has convinced
> me I don't need to be concerned. However, I still forwarded my own photos to
> the manufacturer (Bontrager, in this case) since, if there's an easy way to
> avoid the cogs biting into the mechanism, it would make it a bit easier to
> remove them. And be less scary-looking too.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
 
On May 14, 2:32 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Which I would go along with except...
>
> ... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
> failure.
>
> There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
> required that something actually fail in use. Rather, an appearance that it
> *might* fail is all that's required. The irony is that this thread has
> caused me to re-think what's gone on with my own hub, which actually looks
> worse than the one referenced by the original poster. But all this talk
> about potential failure without anyone claiming actual failure has convinced
> me I don't need to be concerned. However, I still forwarded my own photos to
> the manufacturer (Bontrager, in this case) since, if there's an easy way to
> avoid the cogs biting into the mechanism, it would make it a bit easier to
> remove them. And be less scary-looking too.

Mike,
There *is* an easy way to avoid it. Two, actually ... use steel for
the freehub, or copy the Dura-Ace 10sp freehub splines. Not only is
it an easy fix, but it's an easy one to test and by now, it's an old
problem, 10sp has been around for some time now.

It is a failure of the design of the part such that it does not behave
as a freehub body should. Not that it's going to break and cause
injury (phew .. no need to worry about expensive legal action ...),
but it is not correct behaviour of the part. Cassettes should slide
off freehubs, rather than requiring multiple chainwhips and hammers
after a small amount of use. The design is flawed. It needs to be
fixed. The evidence of same is overwhelming. You yourself have been
in touch with Trek/Bontrager, as have I with them and Saris, they
*know* it's wrong. The fix is *easy*. Too much time in sales &
marketing must really rot human brains, I think.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
> >> splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
> >> greater
> >> failure than something "better."
> >>
> >> Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
> >> extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as
> >> impeding
> >> the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
> >> annoyance.
> >
> > A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
> > not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
> > designed in failure. Unacceptable.
>
> Which I would go along with except...
>
> ... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
> failure.
>
> There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
> required that something actually fail in use. Rather, an appearance that it
> *might* fail is all that's required. The irony is that this thread has
> caused me to re-think what's gone on with my own hub, which actually looks
> worse than the one referenced by the original poster. But all this talk
> about potential failure without anyone claiming actual failure has convinced
> me I don't need to be concerned. However, I still forwarded my own photos to
> the manufacturer (Bontrager, in this case) since, if there's an easy way to
> avoid the cogs biting into the mechanism, it would make it a bit easier to
> remove them. And be less scary-looking too.

I use failure to mean degradation of the part: gouging in this case.

--
Michael Press
 
On 2007-05-14, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
>>>> splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
>>>> greater
>>>> failure than something "better."
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
>>>> extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as
>>>> impeding
>>>> the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
>>>> annoyance.
>>> A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
>>> not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
>>> designed in failure. Unacceptable.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Press
>>
>> Which I would go along with except...
>>
>> ... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
>> failure.
>
> it /has/ failed. it has yielded. that shouldn't happen. particularly
> not on a $1500 hub!

The spoke holes on my $1500, er $50 hubs yielded when I built the wheel
and they're OK.

With spoke hole yielding the idea is that as the spoke sort of sinks
into the hub it provides more and more resistance until you have a good
support that's no longer yielding.

I imagine something similar could happen with freehub splines as the
sprockets bed into them.

I'd be disappointed if I forked $1500 and my hub looked like it had been
chewed by a squirrel, but it sounds like Mike has a point. You'd need a
huge force to strip a spline right off.

>> There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
>> required that something actually fail in use.
 
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-05-14, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
>>>>> splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
>>>>> greater
>>>>> failure than something "better."
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
>>>>> extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as
>>>>> impeding
>>>>> the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
>>>>> annoyance.
>>>> A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
>>>> not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
>>>> designed in failure. Unacceptable.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Press
>>> Which I would go along with except...
>>>
>>> ... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
>>> failure.
>> it /has/ failed. it has yielded. that shouldn't happen. particularly
>> not on a $1500 hub!
>
> The spoke holes on my $1500, er $50 hubs yielded when I built the wheel
> and they're OK.

good point!

>
> With spoke hole yielding the idea is that as the spoke sort of sinks
> into the hub it provides more and more resistance until you have a good
> support that's no longer yielding.
>
> I imagine something similar could happen with freehub splines as the
> sprockets bed into them.

you don't want that to happen. with a spoke, the contact point is tiny
initially, and the contact area grows rapidly as the wire embeds - just
like with a brinell indenter. resistance to further grows accordingly.

with a sprocket and spline, the sprocket presents no greater area to the
spline as it embeds, so the only resistance can come from work hardening
of the material and perhaps a little pile-up. this is highly
unsatisfactory and will in due course lead to total failure after a
given number of yielding loads.

>
> I'd be disappointed if I forked $1500 and my hub looked like it had been
> chewed by a squirrel, but it sounds like Mike has a point. You'd need a
> huge force to strip a spline right off.
>
>>> There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
>>> required that something actually fail in use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ctimrun
Cyclops or Cyclops fluid 2?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
svencooke
S
Bobaras
cyclops trainer is broken
Replies
1
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
grzegorz
grzegorz
M
Saris Hitch Mount racks
Replies
3
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
castiron
C
sheckie
Saris Bones 3 on Honda Accord
Replies
5
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
sheckie
sheckie
madlib
thule yakima or saris
Replies
4
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
madlib
madlib
Top Bottom Back