KING HUBS -- LOUDEST ON THE MARKET?????

[Marten Gerritse]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> Good luck taking a shimano freehub apart, it can be done but you may not get it back together.

Once you've managed a Regina d'Oro freewheel, everything else is easy /Marten

 

[David Damerell]

<[email protected]> wrote:
>spin with the pedals. I've been riding this kind of ratchet all of my bicycling days, first by
>Regina and then Sun Tour,

I suspect this is a FAQ, but who currently owns the rights to the various Sun Tour designs? It seems
to me that a lot of their kit is very much in demand still...
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[Jobst Brandt]

David L. Johnson writes:

>>>> I'm going to take one apart just for the learning experience. But, as Jobst said, they can be
>>>> silent and still do their job.

>>> I think he was referring to clutch mechanisms designed to be silent. But a true ratchet that is
>>> silent is a ratchet that is fouled with something, and could easily fail.

>> Not so.

> I had misunderstood what you said about the silent freewheel earlier.

>> Since I still ride antique equipment, you cannot hear the freewheel even when I raise the back
>> end and give the rear wheel a spin with the pedals. I've been riding this kind of ratchet all of
>> my bicycling days, first by Regina and then Sun Tour, both with the same type of bifurcated
>> large pivot pawls, sprung by a single circumferential spring-wire.

> I have also used a number of Regina freewheels, but only a few Sun Tours. I don't recall any being
> silent, except for the one Regina I re-built, and that was not a total success.

More specifically, the large radius heel of the bifurcated pawl is depressed on its rear edge by a
circumferential spring wire that encircles the stator, retains the pawls on assembly, and
articulates them into engagement. Since the change from freewheeling to drive is a slow one, on the
order of human response, it does not require a lightning fast action (audible frequency speed) and a
light weight pawl cannot make much noise even when it rides over ratchet teeth.

It was this design that most steel freewheels/freehubs used until recently.

> this is the same design (with 3 pawls) now used by Campy. Mine is fairly quiet, but that is
> because I used more grease than Campy put in at the factory.

I use 30W motor oil and you can't hear it click.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Nicholas Grieco writes:

>> ...The reason for all these "new" freewheel ratchets is that the sprocket bodies are being made
>> of aluminum to save weight. Aluminum is insufficiently strong to have a conventional ratchet
>> inside the sprocket carrier so all sorts of ratchets with more strength are being tried, some
>> having no advantage.

>> The problem with all this is that a sprocket carrier of aluminum is also too weak to carry
>> sprockets that dig into the splined body up to failure...

> Interesting- that's a mode of failure which is new to me. Is this different for a cassette, as
> opposed to a set of individual sprockets with spacers? Are the smaller sprockets more likely to
> cause a problem than the larger?

Any individual sprocket that runs directly on the aluminum freehub, especially larger ones, dig in
and are hard to remove at times.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[Robin Hubert]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Nicholas Grieco writes:
>
> >> ...The reason for all these "new" freewheel ratchets is that the sprocket bodies are being
> >> made of aluminum to save weight. Aluminum is insufficiently strong to have a conventional
> >> ratchet inside the sprocket carrier so all sorts of ratchets with more strength are being
> >> tried, some having no advantage.
>
> >> The problem with all this is that a sprocket carrier of aluminum is also too weak to carry
> >> sprockets that dig into the splined body up to failure...
>
> > Interesting- that's a mode of failure which is new to me. Is this different for a cassette, as
> > opposed to a set of individual sprockets with spacers? Are the smaller sprockets more likely to
> > cause a problem than the larger?
>
> Any individual sprocket that runs directly on the aluminum freehub, especially larger ones, dig in
> and are hard to remove at times.
>

This also happens on certain stainless steel freehub bodies made in California.

Robin Hubert

 

[Nicholas]

Jobst Brandt writes:
> > >> ...The reason for all these "new" freewheel ratchets is that the sprocket bodies are being
> > >> made of aluminum to save weight. Aluminum is insufficiently strong to have a conventional
> > >> ratchet inside the sprocket carrier so all sorts of ratchets with more strength are being
> > >> tried, some having no advantage.

Nicholas Grieco replies:
> > > Chris King offers a choice of drive shell: aluminum or stainless
steel.

JB continues:
> > >> The problem with all this is that a sprocket carrier of aluminum is also too weak to carry
> > >> sprockets that dig into the splined body up to failure...

NG:
> > > Interesting- that's a mode of failure which is new to me. Is this different for a cassette, as
> > > opposed to a set of individual sprockets with spacers? Are the smaller sprockets more likely
> > > to cause a problem than the larger?

JB:
> > Any individual sprocket that runs directly on the aluminum freehub, especially larger ones, dig
> > in and are hard to remove at times.

Robin Hubert writes:
> This also happens on certain stainless steel freehub bodies made in California.

If you claim stainless steel drive shells are failing in the same manner as aluminum ones, then you
could be suggesting there is a more fundamental problem in the design of the sprocket carrier.

What have you found other manufacturers doing that is different in this area, to circumvent the
problem you observe?

Nicholas Grieco

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Nicholas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jobst Brandt writes:
> > > >> ...The reason for all these "new" freewheel ratchets is that the sprocket bodies are being
> > > >> made of aluminum to save weight. Aluminum is insufficiently strong to have a conventional
> > > >> ratchet inside the sprocket carrier so all sorts of ratchets with more strength are being
> > > >> tried, some having no advantage.
>
> Nicholas Grieco replies:
> > > > Chris King offers a choice of drive shell: aluminum or stainless
> steel.
>
> JB continues:
> > > >> The problem with all this is that a sprocket carrier of aluminum is also too weak to carry
> > > >> sprockets that dig into the splined body up to failure...
>
> NG:
> > > > Interesting- that's a mode of failure which is new to me. Is this different for a cassette,
> > > > as opposed to a set of individual sprockets with spacers? Are the smaller sprockets more
> > > > likely to cause a problem than the larger?
>
> JB:
> > > Any individual sprocket that runs directly on the aluminum freehub, especially larger ones,
> > > dig in and are hard to remove at times.
>
> Robin Hubert writes:
> > This also happens on certain stainless steel freehub bodies made in California.
>
> If you claim stainless steel drive shells are failing in the same manner as aluminum ones, then
> you could be suggesting there is a more fundamental problem in the design of the sprocket carrier.

Perhaps I was being unclear. I was referring to the Jobst's mention of indentation of the carrier by
the individual cogs digging into the material, specifically aluminum ones, causing difficulty in
removal of said cogs.

> What have you found other manufacturers doing that is different in this area, to circumvent the
> problem you observe?

Nothing.

Robin Hubert

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Nicholas Grieco writes:

>>> Any individual sprocket that runs directly on the aluminum freehub, especially larger ones, dig
>>> in and are hard to remove at times.

>> This also happens on certain stainless steel freehub bodies made in California.

> If you claim stainless steel drive shells are failing in the same manner as aluminum ones, then
> you could be suggesting there is a more fundamental problem in the design of the sprocket carrier.

> What have you found other manufacturers doing that is different in this area, to circumvent the
> problem you observe?

That means the stainless ones are not hardened sufficiently. Besides, hardening stainless steels are
more expensive. Case hardened carbon or alloy steel shells can and have sustained these loads with
no damage. Next, we'll see titanium or even carbon fiber shells and the "tifosi" will go gaga over
them at $200 each.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[A Muzi]

> Nicholas Grieco writes:
>
> >>> Any individual sprocket that runs directly on the aluminum freehub, especially larger ones,
> >>> dig in and are hard to remove at times.
>
> >> This also happens on certain stainless steel freehub bodies made in California.
>
> > If you claim stainless steel drive shells are failing in the same manner as aluminum ones, then
> > you could be suggesting there is a more fundamental problem in the design of the sprocket
> > carrier.
>
> > What have you found other manufacturers doing that is different in this area, to circumvent the
> > problem you observe?

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> That means the stainless ones are not hardened sufficiently. Besides, hardening stainless steels
> are more expensive. Case hardened carbon or alloy steel shells can and have sustained these loads
> with no damage. Next, we'll see titanium or even carbon fiber shells and the "tifosi" will go gaga
> over them at $200 each.

Only $200? Uhh, that would be _cheaper_!

--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971