Strength of solid versus hollow axles



In article <[email protected]>
Sandy Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Alan
> Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Nor internal combustion engine pistons, but my grandfather told the
> > story of a buyer at an auction soon after the war finding his newly
> > acquired lorry had oak pistons when the engine siezed - not very
> > long after he had bought it, but long enough that he wasn't able to
> > get his cash back.

>
> Nylon stockings were almost as good and were much easier to fit.
>

That's to make a knackered gearbox run quieter.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Sandy Morton wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Alan
>Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nor internal combustion engine pistons, but my grandfather told the
>> story of a buyer at an auction soon after the war finding his newly
>> acquired lorry had oak pistons when the engine siezed - not very
>> long after he had bought it, but long enough that he wasn't able to
>> get his cash back.

>
>Nylon stockings were almost as good and were much easier to fit.


And silk was needed for parachutes. Are we far enough off topic yet?
(Are nylon stockings easier to fit than silk ones? If not, easier to
fit than what?)
 
On Tue, 26 Sep, [email protected] <> wrote:

> It can be, if the axle is insufficient to bear the loads it
> encounters. The strongest axles are those well made, of good quality
> steel - and solid.


Nonsense.
Diamond hollow ones are significantly stronger than solid steel.

Since the chances of finding a solid axle in as good a grade of steel
as a decent QR one are similar to finding a diamond QR axle, your
comment is similarly irrelevant.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Roger Thorpe wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:


>> Breakages in the middle of the axle happen(ed) as well.

>
> You may be right, but I honestly can't remember seeing one break
> anwhere else than at the cone.


The solid rear axle on the Big Red Roockhooper borke in the middle circa
1987. Back in those days it was "common knowledge" that hollow axles
weren't up to the battering that mountain bikes handed out...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Funny... You don't /look/ like Martha and the Vandellas!
 
Dave Larrington wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:

>
>
>>>Breakages in the middle of the axle happen(ed) as well.

>>
>>You may be right, but I honestly can't remember seeing one break
>>anwhere else than at the cone.

>
>
> The solid rear axle on the Big Red Roockhooper borke in the middle circa
> 1987. Back in those days it was "common knowledge" that hollow axles
> weren't up to the battering that mountain bikes handed out...
>

That's interesting, It's certainly not what an engineer might expect.
The "common knowledge" thing is interesting. We're almost as open to
pseudoscience as the hifi crowd. I'm a skeptic about things like oval
chainrings, tied and soldered spokes, radial spokes, leather saddles,
short wheelbase frames, L shaped cranks silk tubulars and helmets being
dangerous.
But please don't make me argue about them here!

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!
 
Roger Thorpe wrote on 27/09/2006 09:33 +0100:
> We're almost as open to
> pseudoscience as the hifi crowd.


There is a hell of a lot of pseudo-science there but OTOH I have just
bought a new amp (to replace an old failed one) and was quite surprised
that even at the moderately expensive end amplifiers do sound markedly
different. And just to make sure I got my daughter and XYL to listen
comparatively and without any hints they described exactly the same
differences as I was hearing. So I am now more persuaded in an area
where I had thought an amp is an amp is an amp. I'm still not convinced
by the guys that say they need running in before they sound their best
though.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:13:05 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Roger Thorpe wrote on 27/09/2006 09:33 +0100:
>> We're almost as open to
>> pseudoscience as the hifi crowd.

>
>There is a hell of a lot of pseudo-science there but OTOH I have just
>bought a new amp (to replace an old failed one) and was quite surprised
>that even at the moderately expensive end amplifiers do sound markedly
>different. And just to make sure I got my daughter and XYL to listen
>comparatively and without any hints they described exactly the same
>differences as I was hearing. So I am now more persuaded in an area
>where I had thought an amp is an amp is an amp. I'm still not convinced
>by the guys that say they need running in before they sound their best
>though.


You could always go the route of cryogenically-treated mains outlets
and $400 wooden volume control knobs (it _really does_ make it sound
better - honest).
 
On 26 Sep 2006 21:56:27 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Sep, [email protected] <> wrote:
>
>> It can be, if the axle is insufficient to bear the loads it
>> encounters. The strongest axles are those well made, of good quality
>> steel - and solid.

>
>Nonsense.
>Diamond hollow ones are significantly stronger than solid steel.
>
>Since the chances of finding a solid axle in as good a grade of steel
>as a decent QR one are similar to finding a diamond QR axle, your
>comment is similarly irrelevant.
>


These not good enough for you?

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/hub-parts.html

http://www.loosescrews.com/index.cg...s&tc=Front&item_id=SH-3370100&id=928164210600

http://www.bicycleclassics.com/hubs.html