Re: headstock bearings, random numbers


Pete Biggs

Geraint Jones wrote:
> It was the thin trickle of rusty grease from the bottom headstock
> bearing that made me strip it down, your honour... eventually
> traceable to a leak at the bolt at the top of the (quill) stem, and a
> rusty bit of cast iron pretending to be the nut-cum-spreader bit
> (whatever that's called) but that's another story. (What is that
> called? Is it on Guy's naming of parts relay?)
> Anwyay, the cage and balls in the bottom bearing were clearly scrap,
> so
> I got out my packet of -- um, er, they're not here any more, but I
> think they were 5/32", that's what they would be, isn't it? -- 5/32"
> balls.

For most headsets. Some use other sizes.

> Ah, but how many? There's the random number! Everyone (as in
> Richard) just tells you that there are so many different bearings,
> it's whatever number you took out, but that can't be right, can it?
> I mean if there were twenty balls in the cage, then twenty loose
> balls cannot possibly
> be right, can it? Is there a fiddle-factor?

I suppose twenty loose balls would work but the more balls fitted, the
more the load is spread and the longer everything lasts. Being able to
use more balls is the main advantage of using loose ones. Fit as many as
will fit as long as there's still a gap.