source for 145mm Ti skewers?

[Dan Baker]

I need to replace skewers on my tandem, and would like to go with decent Ti. However, I'm having
trouble locating a source with 145mm rear skewers. Anyone know where I can get some?

thanx,

D

 

[Mike S.]

"dan baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I need to replace skewers on my tandem, and would like to go with decent Ti. However, I'm having
> trouble locating a source with 145mm rear skewers. Anyone know where I can get some?
>
> thanx,
>
> D

You sure that you really want to do that? IMO Ti isn't the best material for that
application, especially on a tandem. Save the Ti for the Conago C40, a tandem isn't the best
place for gram counting.

 

[bobqzzi]

You do realize that Ti skewers are weaker than steel ones?

On 8 Jan 2003 16:24:59 -0800, [email protected] (dan baker) wrote:

>I need to replace skewers on my tandem, and would like to go with decent Ti. However, I'm having
>trouble locating a source with 145mm rear skewers. Anyone know where I can get some?
>
>thanx,
>
>D

 

[Baird Webel]

On 1/8/03 21:02, in article [email protected], "Mike S."
<mikeshaw@coxDOTnet> wrote:

>
> "dan baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I need to replace skewers on my tandem, and would like to go with decent Ti. However, I'm having
>> trouble locating a source with 145mm rear skewers. Anyone know where I can get some?
>>
>> thanx,
>>
>> D
>
>
>
> You sure that you really want to do that? IMO Ti isn't the best material for that application,
> especially on a tandem. Save the Ti for the Conago C40, a tandem isn't the best place for gram
> counting.

How much stress would skewers get? I can't see much on the front wheel and, assuming vertical
dropouts, wouldn't seem like much on the rear either.

Baird

 

[Mark Hickey]

Baird Webel <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/8/03 21:02, in article [email protected], "Mike S."
><mikeshaw@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> You sure that you really want to do that? IMO Ti isn't the best material for that application,
>> especially on a tandem. Save the Ti for the Conago C40, a tandem isn't the best place for gram
>> counting.
>
>How much stress would skewers get? I can't see much on the front wheel and, assuming vertical
>dropouts, wouldn't seem like much on the rear either.

There's a HUGE amount of stress on the front wheel (much, much more than twice that on a
"half-bike"). Probably the same on the back, but since I'm not having to keep it pointed in the
right direction, I don't notice so much... ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[A Muzi]

> > "dan baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> I need to replace skewers on my tandem, and would like to go with decent Ti. However, I'm
> >> having trouble locating a source with 145mm rear skewers. Anyone know where I can get some?

> On 1/8/03 21:02, in article [email protected], "Mike S."
> <mikeshaw@coxDOTnet> questioned:
> > You sure that you really want to do that? IMO Ti isn't the best
material
> > for that application, especially on a tandem. Save the Ti for the
Conago
> > C40, a tandem isn't the best place for gram counting.

"Baird Webel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA42450C.1905D%[email protected]...
> How much stress would skewers get? I can't see much on the front wheel
and,
> assuming vertical dropouts, wouldn't seem like much on the rear either.

Ti non-quick-release skewers commonly fail when tightening, and even removing, with a normal length
5mm allen key. Not a great material for a skewer IMHO.

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

 

[Dan Baker]

...
> There's a HUGE amount of stress on the front wheel (much, much more than twice that on a
> "half-bike"). Mark Hickey
> -----------------

hhhmmm, I'm interested in the mechanics of some of these responses. From an engineering standpoint,
I dont see why the material of a skewer should matter at all as long as it has enough tensile
strength to clamp hard enough. Once clamped, I cant see how the skewer comes into play at all; the
function of the skewer as far as I can see is simply to give enough clamping force so that the
stress is passed from the dropouts to the axle as a "solid" member rather than a cantalever. The
stress in the skewer "should" be completely tensile stress.... Is that not true?

The only caveat I can see is that in a suspension fork or mountain biking, I can see where the fork
would be subject to twisting and side forces that would effectively apply more tension to the
skewer, and possibly snap at stress points like the threads.

Theoretically, it would seem that you *could* use a flexible cable, like SS, kevlar, or something
like that even if you could apply enough tension.

you guys got me curious now...... any more comments along these lines? hopefully Sheldon will see
this and add his .02?

D

 

[Dan Baker]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
The Salsa-type QR is
> identifiable by having a visible cam, as opposed to the conventional type (still in use by
> Shimano) where the cam is hidden under the cap. The problem with the Salsa-type QR is that doesn't
> clamp nearly as well as the conventional ones, with the result being a lot of creaking from the
> hub/frame (or fork) interface. And that's on a regular road bike!
> -------------

I am finding this more and more interesting..... I am very curious about your sources for the
difference in clamping force. Do you recall where you may have seen or read a test? do you remember
what the difference might have been?

Seems like there would be a pretty big variable in how tight the pre-clamp tension was. I know that
in taking off/on a front wheel I usually have to adjust the cap several times to get the clamp "as
tight as I can". Anyway, just for fun, I emailed Salsa on this topic, and we'll see if they reply
with any head-to-head test results.

D

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> I am finding this more and more interesting..... I am very curious about your sources for the
> difference in clamping force. Do you recall where you may have seen or read a test? do you
> remember what the difference might have been?

This "test" is performed every single day, in bicycle shops all over. You wouldn't believe the
number of people who have had mysterious creaks coming from their bikes magically "cured" by simply
changing the front quick release from the Salsa-style to a more conventional type. It's even covered
in the section on our website that talks about getting rid of noises from your bicycle.

Sounds like we're picking on Salsa a lot here. It should be made clear that Salsa first popularized
this type of quick release, but it has now been adopted by many (if not most) others. I'll also
point out that you can improve the clamping of a Salsa-style quick release by making sure all moving
surfaces are lubricated.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"dan baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> The Salsa-type QR is
> > identifiable by having a visible cam, as opposed to the conventional
type
> > (still in use by Shimano) where the cam is hidden under the cap. The problem with the Salsa-type
> > QR is that doesn't clamp nearly as well as
the
> > conventional ones, with the result being a lot of creaking from the hub/frame (or fork)
> > interface. And that's on a regular road bike!
> > -------------
>
> I am finding this more and more interesting..... I am very curious about your sources for the
> difference in clamping force. Do you recall where you may have seen or read a test? do you
> remember what the difference might have been?
>
> Seems like there would be a pretty big variable in how tight the pre-clamp tension was. I know
> that in taking off/on a front wheel I usually have to adjust the cap several times to get the
> clamp "as tight as I can". Anyway, just for fun, I emailed Salsa on this topic, and we'll see if
> they reply with any head-to-head test results.
>
> D

 

[Dianne_1234]

Compare ti and steel skewers. Assume you set the skewer nut the same. Say, "begins to get tight
about half way through the stroke"). That way the cam enforces the same strain in both rods.

If all else is equal, a ti skewer should typically generate about half the tension of a steel one.
That's because ti is about half as stiff as steel.

That's easy to conclude because skewer rods are all about the same diameter and length, so material
properties explain it all.

[email protected] (dan baker) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> The Salsa-type QR is
> > identifiable by having a visible cam, as opposed to the conventional type (still in use by
> > Shimano) where the cam is hidden under the cap. The problem with the Salsa-type QR is that
> > doesn't clamp nearly as well as the conventional ones, with the result being a lot of creaking
> > from the hub/frame (or fork) interface. And that's on a regular road bike!
> > -------------
>
> I am finding this more and more interesting..... I am very curious about your sources for the
> difference in clamping force. Do you recall where you may have seen or read a test? do you
> remember what the difference might have been?
>
> Seems like there would be a pretty big variable in how tight the pre-clamp tension was. I know
> that in taking off/on a front wheel I usually have to adjust the cap several times to get the
> clamp "as tight as I can". Anyway, just for fun, I emailed Salsa on this topic, and we'll see if
> they reply with any head-to-head test results.
>
> D

 

[Dan Baker]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > I am very curious about your sources for the difference in clamping force. Do you recall where
> > you may have seen or read a test?
>
> This "test" is performed every single day, in bicycle shops all over. You wouldn't believe the
> number of people who have had mysterious creaks coming from their bikes magically "cured" by
> simply changing the front quick release from the Salsa-style to a more conventional type.
------------

interesting...

I did email Salsa, and they are actually in the middle of doing some testingn on clamping force.
Odd since it seems like regardless of the cam you'd be limited by whatever tension it would take
to strip the threads off the nut-end; unless the skewer knurling is really much different
resulting in less grip. I was told that they would send test results when available, which I will
post. They did reiterate that Ti would not be the best choice for a 145mm rear, or even a 100
front on a tandem or suspension application.... Ti is maybe not too weak, but a little too
springy, hence the creaking probably.

stay tuned,

Dan

 

[John Stevenson]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Sounds like we're picking on Salsa a lot here. It should be made clear that Salsa first
> popularized this type of quick release,

If memory serves, the first QR of this type was the Ringle Twist-cam, a design which was supposed to
work the way the Salsa skewer does, but had no plastic bushing between the lever and the clamp plate
(the part that presses on the ouside of the drop-out) and so had to be twisted to finish the
tensioning. A **** piece of design that turned the QR into a glorified wing-nut, but it was a) very
light and b) purple, which was vitally important to us in 1990.

I think the Salsa QR is being slightly unfairly maligned in this discussion. I seem to recall a
comparison in Mountain Bike Action where the clamping force of various skewers was measured and the
steel Salsas came out as well as more conventional QRs from Shimano, though most of the
similarly-designed competition was anywhere between ****-poor and mediocre.

John Stevenson Escaped mountain bike magazine guy

 

[Dan Baker]

[email protected] (Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...
> ... Then consider how much weight you save with a ti skewer over a steel, I calculate about 9
> grams per wheel, or 18 grams total.
------
well, a little more than that when comparing a cheap no-name cro-mo skewer set with a good Ti set,
but probably around 30-50 grams at most. I'd even consider non QR, but seems like way more of a pain
when changing a flat and putting bikes in racks.

My primary reason for starting to look around was that the set that came with the bike have really
sticky grindy levers, so I thought I'd look into the "best" available.

>
> One thing to realize is that Ti is not as stiff as steel and that the threads probably have more
> friction so getting it tight will be more difficult.
> ---------
I dont believe this is the correct mechanical arguement... more that the modulus of elasticity of Ti
is lower (more stretchy) coupled with a longer skewer for a tandem (145 or 160mm) makes it more
likely that as the frame trys to flex a little the skewer will stretch, reducing clamping force as
it recovers on the flex enough to creak or *maybe* break.

the clamping force combined with how much friction is between the hub/dropout/skewer will determin
if it actually slips or creaks or whatever. From what I've been learning the Salsa-type levers can
produce plenty of clamp (although less than shimano-style), and for sure have smooth action with
delrin bushings. These conditions can be hindered or helped by excess paint on frame, or extra
aggressive knurling on hubcaps as is on philwood tandem hubs.

all that being said I am coming to the conclusion that SS is a better choice than Ti for a tandem in
general, although I'd *probably* be fine with my road tandem and relatively low bike/rider weight.

d

 

[Mike S.]

Yeah, you'd probably be OK with the Ti skewers if the two of you are featherweights, but do you
really want to risk it?

"dan baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...
> > ... Then consider how much weight you save with a ti skewer over a steel, I calculate about 9
> > grams per wheel, or 18 grams total.
> ------
> well, a little more than that when comparing a cheap no-name cro-mo skewer set with a good Ti set,
> but probably around 30-50 grams at most. I'd even consider non QR, but seems like way more of a
> pain when changing a flat and putting bikes in racks.
>
> My primary reason for starting to look around was that the set that came with the bike have really
> sticky grindy levers, so I thought I'd look into the "best" available.
>
> >
> > One thing to realize is that Ti is not as stiff as steel and that the
threads
> > probably have more friction so getting it tight will be more difficult.
> > ---------
> I dont believe this is the correct mechanical arguement... more that the modulus of elasticity of
> Ti is lower (more stretchy) coupled with a longer skewer for a tandem (145 or 160mm) makes it more
> likely that as the frame trys to flex a little the skewer will stretch, reducing clamping force as
> it recovers on the flex enough to creak or *maybe* break.
>
> the clamping force combined with how much friction is between the hub/dropout/skewer will determin
> if it actually slips or creaks or whatever. From what I've been learning the Salsa-type levers can
> produce plenty of clamp (although less than shimano-style), and for sure have smooth action with
> delrin bushings. These conditions can be hindered or helped by excess paint on frame, or extra
> aggressive knurling on hubcaps as is on philwood tandem hubs.
>
> all that being said I am coming to the conclusion that SS is a better choice than Ti for a
> tandem in general, although I'd *probably* be fine with my road tandem and relatively low
> bike/rider weight.
>
> d

 

[Dan Baker]

[email protected] (dan baker) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I need to replace skewers on my tandem, and would like to go with decent Ti.
-------------------
ok, now that I have seen the error of my ways, and am looking at SS skewers. The question comes
to mind whether I would be better served by Shimano-style, Salsa-style, or bolt-style.

There have been some mentions that clamping force is better with Shimano style QR endcaps. I am
wondering if anyone has actually had any problems with Salsa SS on a road tandem.

Also wondering about the pros/cons of bolt-style besides the obvious pain when fixing flats. i.e.
are the skewers stronger/weaker? is the clamping force as high, as consistant as a QR? Depends on
"feel" I suppose. I figure the weight of an allen key is no more than the QR levers, I I carry a
multi-tool anyway, so its about a wash for that consideration.

comments?